PROSEGUR AB v UNI Global Union

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Ongoing
Date Submitted 26/11/2013
Case Duration 298 weeks and 5 days so far
Host Countries Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Colombia  (Adhering Country)
Paraguay  (Non-adhering country)
Peru  (Adhering Country)
Sector Security 
Issue(s) Interference with the right to organise; evasion of collective bargaining obligations; harassment of trade union organisers and activists.
Provisions Cited I.2  IV.1  IV.2  IV.4  IV.5  V.1-a  V.1-b  V.1-e  V.2-a  V.2-b  V.2-c  V.3  V.4-b  V.4-c  V.7   
Case Description In November 2013, UNI Global Union (UNI) submitted a case to the Spanish NCP concerning labour violations by Prosegur- a major global provider of private security services- in 4 Latin American countries (Paraguay, Colombia, Peru and Brazil).

For its operations in Spain, Prosegur enjoys a reputation as a good corporate citizen. For its operations in Latin America, UNI describe a different picture. Citing Chapters I (Concepts and Principles), IV (Human Rights) and V (Employment and Industrial Relations), UNI claims serious acts of interference with freedom of association, including the harassment and dismissal of union organisers and union activists, that Prosegur has sought to evade its bargaining obligations, that it has violated local laws and that it has irritated local courts by delaying implementation of their rulings; actions incompatible with the ILO and human rights based framework that the Guidelines seek to establish. UNI also describes how Prosegur has failed to put in place systems and safeguards for ensuring that it is sufficiently able to respect workers’ rights throughout its global operations - to conduct due diligence.

Attempts to resolve the matters through discussion have so far been unsuccessful. To date, the company has refused to meet with the NCP and UNI to mediate this dispute. UNI is looking for constructive dialogue with Prosegur to bring about a negotiated settlement that addresses the violations in its overseas operations, and to reach an agreement that improves the company’s due diligence monitoring and response.
Developments The NCP called a meeting between the parties in June 2014 and accepted the case in September 2014.
Outcome This case is ongoing.

Organisations

Lead NCP Spain NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company PROSEGUR AB (Home country: Spain)

Complainants

Lead Complainant UNI Global Union : Global Union Federation 

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?