General Motors V Porto Alegre Metal Workers’ Union

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 04/09/2003
Date Closed 25/03/2008
Case Duration 237 weeks and 5 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Yellow unions
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  VI   
Case Description In September 2003, the Porto Alegre Metal, Mechanical and Electrical Material Workers’ Union submitted a case to the Brazilian NCP regarding the conduct of General Motors Do Brasil Ltda, a subsidiary of the US based General Motors.

The union alleged that since its creation in 1997, the company has interfered with the employees’ right to organise. In August 1997, GM created a company union, financed by General Motors, in a meeting that was held behind closed doors and to which union members were not invited. The company encouraged workers to join the company union so as to avoid 'negative consequences', whilst workers belonging to the real union were subject to retaliation. The case was also submitted to the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association.

Outcome The NCP invited the social partners including the company union to a tripartite meeting, but the latter d

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company General Motors (Home country: US)
Subsidiary General Motors do Brasil Ltda

Complainants

Lead Complainant Porto Alegre Metal Workers' Union : Regional/state sectoral union 

Related Documents

OECD  [Publication date: 25/3/2008] 'National Contact Point of Brazil FINAL STATEMENT General Motors 2003'
   http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/database/ncp/General-Motors-2003.pdf [Date URL accessed: 10/6/2015]

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