HeidelbergCement Group V Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions and IndustriALL

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 29/05/2013
Date Closed 21/05/2014
Case Duration 51 weeks and 0 days
Host Country Indonesia  (OECD Enhanced Engagement)
Sector Building and Construction 
Issue(s) Freedom of association; reprisals against trade unions; violence against trade unions
Provisions Cited V.1-a  V.1-b  V.2-a  V.7   
Case Description In May 2013, the Federation of Indonesian Cement Industy, the Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions and IndustriALL Global Union submitted a case to the German NCP concerning labour violations by HeidelbergCementGroup. The complaint describes anti-union activities including violence and other reprisals against trade unionists in breach of Chapter V (Employment and Industrial Relations) and Chapter IV (Human Rights) of the OECD Guidelines. The complainants have requested the German NCP to offer its good offices to facilitate dialogue between the employers and the union and to find a solution that respects the rights of workers at the plant, Indocement Tunggal Prakarsa.
Developments The case was partially accepted by the German NCP and HeidelbergCementGroup agreed to participate in mediation offered by the German NCP.
Outcome Following mediation provided by the German NCP the parties reached the following agreement:

1. In relation to the point on relocation of the premises the union can accept the new relocated premises. It is a common understanding that union and union members are not hampered in their activities. Whatever warning letters have been issued in this context have expired and are not valid any more.

2. Both sides underline, that safety and security of the workforce within company's premises - including union members- has to be guaranteed. Both sides underline that a good relationship with the local community is crucial for company and unions. Indocement and HeidelbergCement already have a good working CSR program in place. Both sides agree to put CSR projects on the agenda of the regular meetings of the union and the management. This would show the involvement of the union in the
programs. That could demonstrate to the local communities that management and union share the same interest in regards to CSR policies.

3. Both sides agree that union leaders, which means the negotiation team, perform specific functions. This has to be taken into account also in cases of intra-company transfers. A transfer or threat of transfer without consent of the union leader can only be considered as an exception. It is in this view, that the company management will reconsider the individual cases in this complaint.

4. Both parties underline the right of union chairpersons to visit workplaces even if not part of the workforce, and on the other hand respect the rights to act in accordance with local legislation and the collective agreement.
The parties agree that by means of the mediation process at the NCP the alleged complaints have been clarified and resolved by further bilateral dialogue.

Organisations

Lead NCP Germany NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company HeidelbergCement Group (Home country: Germany)
Subsidiary PT Indocement Tunggai Prakarsa (Home country: Indonesia)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Federation of Indonesian Cement Industry : National Centre 
Lead Complainant IndustriALL : Global Union Federation 
Lead Complainant Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions : National Centre 
Affected Party Serikat Pekerja Indocement Tunggal Prakarsa

Related Documents

German NCP  [Publication date: 21/5/2014] 'Joint statement by the German National Contact Point...on a complaint by Indocement Union, SP-ITP, the Federation of Indonesian Cement Industry (FSP-ISI),'
   http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/G/gemeinsame-abschlusserklaerung-nks-indo
   nesien-deutschland-englisch,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=en,rwb=true.pd
   f
[Date URL accessed: 26/5/2014]

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