Michelin V Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de Uniroyal SA de CV (SNTU)

Overview

NCP Decision Suspended
Current Status Suspended
Date Submitted 01/02/2004
Case Duration 775 weeks and 5 days so far
Host Country Mexico  (OECD member)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Failure to inform or consult workers or trade unions on factory closures.
Provisions Cited IV.2-b  IV.2-c  IV.3  IV.6   
Case Description In February 2004, the trade union the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de Uniroyal SA de CV filed a case before the Mexican NCP concering the conduct of two Uniroyal plants in Mexico that had been bought by Michelin in 1992. The complaint contended that the two plants were closed without any prior notification or consultation with the workers. When they arrived at work on 7 August 2000. workers were not allowed to enter the plants. Whilst the trade union SNTU later reached an agreement with the company, the agreement was criticised by some workers for not providing the compensation they were entitled to under the terms of the collective agreement.

In April 2002, one of the plants was re-opened under a new name, but with the same production, structure and owners. The second plant was in fact never closed as it t continued to produce the same tires. In accordance with Mexican law, the dismissed workers therefore demanded that they were re-employed, but were refused. The case was also therefore submitted before the Mexican court.
Developments The NCP met with representatives of the company and the Ministry of Labour, which claimed that the closure was legal. The NCP appears to be awaiting the court ruling in order to bring the case to an end. French unions have brought the case to the attention of the French NCP.

Organisations

Lead NCP Mexico NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP France NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 

Companies

Multinational Company Michelin (Home country: France)
Subsidiary Uniroyal (Home country: Mexico)

Complainants

Lead Complainant SNTU - Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de Uniroyal SA de CV : Company Union 
Lead Complainant Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) : National Centre 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment?
Did the case involve parallel proceedings?
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case?
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary?
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case?
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case?
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation?
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation?
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation?
Was mediation or conciliation held?
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator?
Did the parties reach agreement?
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties?
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines?
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding?
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines?
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report?
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations?
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report?
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report?
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case?
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance?
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case?
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved?
Did the lead NCP play a positive role?
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role?