Seves V Force Ouvrière

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 09/02/2005
Case Duration Not known
Host Country France  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Threats of relocation as a means to win concessions in negotiations on working conditions
Provisions Cited IV.6   
Case Description In February 2005, Force Ouvrière asked the French NCP to examine the conduct of the Italian-based multinational enterprise, Seves, which is the world’s leading manufacturer of glass and composite insulators for power transmission and distribution systems. In its complaint FO contended that Seves threatened to move an operating unit during negotiations with the employee representatives of the Sédiver subsidiary in St-Yorre.
Developments Initially the case was suspended in order to take account of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Versailles.

In 2007, the NCP decided to continue its consideration of the case. However, new and additional information was not forthcoming from the parties. At a meeting of the NCP June 13, 2008, the secretariat of the NCP was still waiting for new information.

Outcome The NCP closed the case in 2009 on the grounds that insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate the threat of relocation.

Organisations

Lead NCP France NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 

Companies

Multinational Company Seves S.p.A (Home country: Italy)

Complainants

Lead Complainant FO - Force Ouvrière : National Centre 

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