Bioplan V ABC Chemical Workers' trade union (SINDICATO DOS QUIMICOS DO ABC) (State of São Paulo, Brazil)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 15/10/2013
Date Closed 07/04/2015
Case Duration 77 weeks and 0 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Issue(s) Refusal to recognise the union
Provisions Cited V.1-a  V.1-b   
Case Description In October 2013, the ABC Chemical Workers's trade union (State of São Paulo, Brazil) submitted a case to the Brazilian NCP concerning Mappel Indústria de Embalagens Ltda, a subsidiary of the French multinational enterprise BIOPLAN, located in Diadema, São Paulo and São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo. The complaint concerned Mappel's refusal to recognise the Union.
Developments In 2014, the Brazilian NCP accepted the case following a consultation first within the Brazilian NCP on 12 December 2013, and subsequently with the Ministry of Work and Employment.

After requesting an extension, the Company sent its response to the Brazilian NCP on 13 March 2015. It requested that the complaint be terminated on the basis of a Court decision, which found that the Union was not supported by most of the workers in the Company.
Outcome In April 2015, the Brazilian NCP rejected the case on the basis of the decision of the Court.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company BIOPLAN (Home country: France)
Subsidiary Mappel Ind. de Embalagens Ltd (Home country: Brazil)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Sindicato dos Quimicos do ABC

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?

TUAC Assessment

TUAC is disappointed to see that this case was rejected on the basis of parallel legal proceedings. It notes that the Brazilian NCP's procedures on this issue are not in line with the guidance set out in the OECD Guidelines. TUAC also notes that this case was subject to lengthy delays.