Coats Plc V International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Suspended
Date Submitted 01/12/2005
Case Duration 680 weeks and 1 days so far
Host Country Sri Lanka  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Textiles, Leather and Garments 
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation; harassment of trade unionists
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.8   
Case Description The anti-union practices by a Bangladeshi subsidiary of the UK enterprise Coats Plc was raised by the ITGLWF with the UK NCP at the beginning of December 2005.

In November 2004, three trade union leaders were dismissed on alleged charges of misconduct, although the union believed that the real reason was their repeated request of a copy of the company’s financial statement. In March 2005, the union organised a peaceful sit-down strike in support of the discharged union leaders. Coats responded with a lock-out. The police arrived at the scene (the union believes that they were called in by the company as this is a common practice in Bangladesh) resulting in a number of workers being injured and 27 arrested. They were later released on bail, but are now facing charges. Since then other union members have been dismissed as well.

Developments This case has been suspended due to ongoing legal proceedings in Bangladesh.

Organisations

Lead NCP UK NCP : Bi-ministerial plus Multi-stakeholder Independent Board 

Companies

Multinational Company Coats Plc (Home country: UK)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers Federation : 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

Implications

/