DeCoro V CGIL, CISL and UIL

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/01/2007
Case Duration Not known
Host Country China  (OECD Enhanced Engagement)
Sector Other 
Issue(s) Harassment: violence against workers
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.4-a   
Case Description In January 2007, the Italian trade union confederations CGIL, CISL and UIL submitted a case to the Italian NCP regarding alleged infringements of the Guidelines by the Italian furniture company DeCoro, at its plant in Shenzen in China. On 3 January 2007, workers were savagely beaten by security guards after attending a meeting in which management tried to force 75 workers to accept dismissal indemnities well below the legal requirement. Most of the workers managed to escape, but three were hospitalised and one fell into a coma.
Developments In its initial assessment, the Italian NCP found that although the company’s owner was an Italian national, the company itself was not registered in Italy.
Outcome The Italian NCP rejected on the grounds that it had no mandate to handle the case because the company was not registered in Italy.

Organisations

Lead NCP Italy NCP : Single Government Department with NCP Committee 

Companies

Multinational Company DeCoro (Home country: Italy)
Subsidiary DeCoro Shenzen (Home country: China)

Complainants

Lead Complainant UIL Unione Italiana del Lavoro : National Centre 
Lead Complainant CGIL Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro : National Centre 
Lead Complainant CISL Confederazione Italiana Sindicati Lavoratori : National Centre 

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

Implications

This case flags a loophole in the Guidelines whereby the NCP does not take responsibility for companies owned by a national but not registered in the country.