Bridgestone V Local Union of Chemical, Energy and Mines

Overview

NCP Decision Suspended
Current Status No Information
Date Submitted 06/09/2004
Case Duration 744 weeks and 6 days so far
Host Country Indonesia  (OECD Enhanced Engagement)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Dismissal of trade union officials for union activities
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.2-a  IV.2-c  IV.3  IV.4-a  IV.7  IV.8   
Case Description On the 6th September 2004, the Local Union of Chemical, Energy and Mines of Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia submitted a case to the NCP of Japan concerning violations of trade union rights by Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company, a subsidiary of Bridgestone Corporation. The union called on the company to reinstate four trade union officials that had been dismissed for union activities. The case has previously been raised with the ILO Committee of Freedom of Association.
Developments In April 2005, TUAC was informed that the submission had not been received by the NCP and it was therefore resent. The NCP acknowledged receipt of the case at the end of May 2005.

Organisations

Lead NCP Japan NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Bridgestone (Home country: Japan)
Subsidiary Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia (Home country: Indonesia)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Local Union of Chemical, Energy and Mines of Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia : Company 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