Suzuki Motor Corporation V Anonymous Trade Unions and NGOs in Thailand

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 10/05/2016
Date Closed 23/06/2017
Case Duration 58 weeks and 3 days
Host Country Thailand  (Non-adhering country)
Issue(s) Violations of trade union rights
Provisions Cited I.3  II.A.2  II.A.9  II.A.10  IV.1  IV.2  IV.4  IV.5  IV.6  V.1-a  V.1-b  V.3  V.4-a  V.8   
Case Description In May 2016, a Thai coalition of trade unions and NGOs filed a complaint with the Japanese NCP against the Japanese MNE Suzuki Motor Corporation for labour rights abuses at a Suzuki manufacturing facility in Thailand. The complainants allege that Suzuki Motor Corporation violated workers' rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining.
Developments On 8 September 2016, the Japanese NCP accepted most of the complaint although not the parts relating to the loss of training opportunities, the failure of the companies to foster a relation of mutual trust with the societies, and the request for the Japanese NCP to recommend prosecution of the case.

It invited the parties to mediation but Suzuki refused to participate.

Outcome On 23 June 2017, the Japanese NCP concluded the Specific Instance on

Organisations

Lead NCP Japan NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Suzuki Motor Corporation (Home country: Japan)
Subsidiary Suzuki Motor (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Home country: Thailand)

Related Documents

Japan NCP  [Publication date: 23/6/2017] 'Final Statement on a Specific Instance Involving Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor (Thailand) Co., Ltd. in Relation to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises'
   http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000269214.pdf [Date URL accessed: 25/7/2017]

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