Hyundai Motor Europe Technical Center GmbH (HMETC) V IG Metall

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 04/04/2014
Date Closed 15/01/2015
Case Duration 40 weeks and 6 days
Host Country Germany  (OECD member)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Undermining the Works Council; violations of the German Works Constitution Act
Provisions Cited V.1-a  V.2-b  V.2-c   
Case Description In April 2014, the German trade union IG Metall submitted a case against the Korean owned Hyundai Motor Europe Technical Center GmbH (HMETC) for violations of the German Works Constitution Act at the Hyundai Motor Europe Technical Center (HMETC) in Russelsheim. The violations concerned the rights of workers to engage freely in Works Council and trade union activity.
Developments The German NCP concluded its initial assessment on 8 July 2014. It accepted part of the complaint and offered the parties assistance with regard to the following:
The question of the violation of trade union rights by:
- a lack of provision of information to the works council
- impeding of trusting cooperation between the board of HMETC and the works council
- damaging the image of the works council in the eyes of the staff of HMETC
- impeding the complainant’s trade union activity on the company site

The NCP stressed that the acceptance of the complaint for further consideration did not imply any finding that the Guidelines have been breached. Instead, the mediation process presented an opportunity to foster mutual respect and to improve the foundations for constructive and trusting cooperation. Despite this, HMETC rejected the German NCP’s invitation to participate in mediation, reiterating that the complaint was unfounded and was not made in good faith.

Outcome In January 2015, the German NCP issued its Final Statement. It stated that:

"The NCP therefore greatly regrets the rejection of its offer of mediation by HMETC. In this context, it refers to figure 21 of the Procedural Guidance to the Guidelines: "The effectiveness of the specific instances procedure depends on good faith behaviour of all parties involved in the procedures. Good faith behaviour in this context means […] refraining from […] threatening or taking reprisals against parties involved in the procedure, and genuinely engaging in the procedures with a view to finding a solution to the issues raised in accordance with the Guidelines".

It also noted that appreciation for "the fact that the complainant committed to the confidentiality of the procedure and did not engage in any public relations work inside or outside the company for the duration of the procedure."

It concluded that "in view of the large number of court cases which have taken place or are pending, the NCP sees no scope to make further recommendations".

Organisations

Lead NCP Germany NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Hyundai Motor Group (Home country: South Korea)
Subsidiary HMETC (Home country: Germany)

Related Documents

German National Contact Point  [Publication date: 15/1/2015] 'Final statement by the German National Contact Point Relating to a complaint by Industriegewerkschaft Metall (IG Metall) against Hyundai Motor Europe Technical Center GmbH (HMETC) in Rüsselsheim, Germany'
   http://www.bmwi.de/English/Redaktion/Pdf/oecd-ac-final-statement-hyundai,proper
   ty=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=en,rwb=true.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 10/6/2015]

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