PKC Group V National Union of Mine, Metal, Steel and Related Workers of the Mexican Republic (SNTMMSSRM) and IndustriALL Global Union

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/09/2012
Date Closed 17/05/2013
Case Duration 36 weeks and 6 days
Host Country Mexico  (OECD member)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Right to form or join a trade union; the right to collective bargaining; and protection contracts
Provisions Cited V.1-a  V.1-b   
Case Description In September 2012, the National Union of Mine, Metal, Steel and Related Workers of the Mexican Republic (SNTMMSSRM) together with the Global Union Federation IndustriALL, filed a complaint with the Mexican NCP on the basis that PKC had without notice to or consultation with the workers at its production facilities in Ciudad Acuña, Mexico installed a company-dominated and controlled labour organization, signed a collective bargaining agreement with this organization, and - based on the existence of this agreement - refused to negotiate with the SNTMMSSRM, which the workers have chosen as their representative.
Outcome The Mexican NCP rejected the case calling on the complainants in the future to present documentary evidence that would establish that there was a prima facie case.

Organisations

Lead NCP Finland NCP : Quadripartite (involving several Ministries, the social partners and NGOs) 
Lead NCP Mexico NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company PKC Group
Subsidiary PKC - Ciudad Acuña

Complainants

Lead Complainant SNTMMSSRM : National Sectoral Union 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment? status-icon
Did the case involve parallel proceedings? status-icon
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary? status-icon
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case? status-icon
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation held? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator? status-icon
Did the parties reach agreement? status-icon
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties? status-icon
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding? status-icon
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case? status-icon
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance? status-icon
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case? status-icon
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved? status-icon
Did the lead NCP play a positive role? status-icon
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role? status-icon

TUAC Assessment

TUAC considers that the Mexican NCP is consistently failing to apply the procedures of the OECD Guidelines.