Banco do Brasil V Sindicato dos Bancários a Financiários de São Paulo, Osasco e Região

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 12/03/2013
Date Closed 28/01/2015
Case Duration 98 weeks and 1 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Financial Services 
Issue(s) Failure to consult; environmental health and safety
Provisions Cited V.1-a  V.1-b  V.4-c   
Case Description In March 2013, the trade union the Sindicato dos Bancários a Financiários de São Paulo, Osasco e Região submitted a case to the Brazilian NCP concerning the following activities of Banco de Brazil: establishing, unilaterally, a plan of functions for its workers with new roles and levels of responsibility, without consultation; preventing the presence of the union in the bank (Interdito Proibitório); and transferring without prior notice or discussion around two thousand employees to the west of the city of São Paulo, to a workplace that is built on contaminated land.
Developments On 8 April 2013, the Brazilian NCP accepted the case. On 8 May 2013, Banco do Brazil informed the NCP of its position in writing. The NCP then requested further information from the complainant. This was supplied on 16 April 2014.

The parties then informed the NCP that they wished to withdraw the case as they had independently found a solution. Therefore on 28 January 2015, the NCP concluded the specific instance and issued a final statement detailing the process and decision.

Outcome The case was withdrawn after mediation.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Banco do Brazil (Home country: Brazil)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Sindicato dos Bancários a Financiários de São Paulo, Osasco e Região

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