Ripley Corp S.A. V UNI Global Union and UNI Americas

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 03/06/2014
Date Closed 01/08/2015
Case Duration 60 weeks and 4 days
Host Country Chile  (OECD member)
Sector Retail 
Issue(s) Anti-union activities; intimidation; corrupt practices
Provisions Cited I.2  IV.1  IV.2  IV.5  IV.6  V.1-a  V.1-b  V.2-a  V.2-b  V.2-c  V.3  V.4-b   
Case Description In June 2014, UNI Global Union and UNI Americas submitted a complaint to the Chilean NCP against the Chilean retailer Ripley Corp S.A. for anti-union practices in Peru. The issues raised date back to 2008, but most recently concerned an anti-union campaign launched in 2013 against the trade union Sindicato Único de Trabajadores del Grupo Ripley S.A. Perú (SUTRAGRISA), during the collective bargaining process and the filing of a legal complaint against 14 union leaders following a 2-day stike. Ripley offered money to workers to abandon the union and has engaged in intimidating practices against union members. In May 2014, Ripley Corp dismissed 23 workers in its Cajamarca store in retaliation for demonstrating against poor working conditions.
Developments The Chilean NCP offered its good offices to the parties, but Ripley refused to participate due to parallel legal proceedings and collective bargaining negotiations with the corresponding union in Peru. The Chilean NCP requested additional information from the Peruvian NCP.
Outcome By August 2015, SUTRAGRISA had concluded a collective bargaining agreement with Ripley and therefore withdrew the complaint.

Organisations

Lead NCP Chile NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP Peru NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP Colombia NCP : Single Department with Multi-stakeholder Advisory Board 

Companies

Multinational Company RIPLEY CORP SA (Home country: Chile)

Complainants

Lead Complainant UNI Global Union : Global Union Federation 
Affected Party Sindicato Único de Trabajadores del Grupo Ripley S.A. Perú : Company Union 

Related Documents

'Complaint: UNI Global Union and UNI Americas V Ripley SA'
   http://www.uniglobalunion.org/sites/default/files/files/news/queja_ripley_peru.
   pdf [Date URL accessed: 16/9/2014]

TUAC Analysis

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