Voestalpine AG V Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status No Information
Date Submitted 03/11/2006
Case Duration 632 weeks and 0 days so far
Host Country US  (OECD member)
Sector Metal Products 
Issue(s) Anti-union activities
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.2-b  IV.2-c  IV.4-a  IV.8   
Case Description In November 2006, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED) raised a case with the US NCP concerning VAE Nortrak’s treatment of employees at two facilities in Alabama. VAE Nortrak is a subsidiary of the Austrian company Voestapline AG (VAE), as well as North America’s leading manufacturer and supplier of trackwork and materials. The US NCP was requested to co-operate with the Austrian NCP in order to resolve the issue.

During the trade union's organising campaign, Nortrak tried to persuade workers not to support the union by offering improved working conditions. Employees were questioned about their union activities and those supporting the union or involved in union activities were harassed. Despite these difficulties, the BMWED was certified as the workers’ representative in June 2005. Nortrak nevertheless continued to suppress workers’ rights. Union supporters have been discharged, suspended and transferred to other assignments. Nortrak also refused to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement.

Developments No further information

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 
Supporting NCP Austria NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Voestalpine AG (Home country: Austria)
Subsidiary VAE Nortrak (Home country: US)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division : National Sectoral Union 

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