Ternium V IndustriALL, United Steel Workers of America and Sitraternium

Overview

NCP Decision Decision Pending
Date Submitted 14/09/2017
Case Duration 13 weeks and 3 days so far
Host Country Guatemala  (Non-adhering country)
Issue(s) Refusal to recognise the union for collective bargaining; retaliation against trade union members
Provisions Cited  
Case Description In September 2017, the Global Union Federation IndustriALL, United Steel Workers of America (USW) and Sitraternium filed a complaint with the Luxembourg NCP against the Luxembourg-based steel MNE, Ternium, for anti-union behaviour at its plant in Villa Nueva in Guatemala. The complainants describe violations of the rights of workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Organisations

Lead NCP Luxembourg NCP : Tripartite (involving one government department and the social partners) 

Complainants

Lead Complainant USW United Steelworkers of America : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant IndustriALL : Global Union Federation 

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