Top Thermo Manufacturers V Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC)

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 12/03/2003
Date Closed 16/02/2012
Case Duration 466 weeks and 1 days
Host Country Malaysia  (Non-adhering country)
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In March 2003 the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) submitted a case to the Japanese NCP concerning the anti-union activities of the Japanese company Top Thermo Manufacturers. The company for several years refused to recognise the Metal Industry Employees Union (MIEU). Moreover, it dismissed trade union organisers and discriminated against union members. The complaint also alleged that the violations contravened the Malaysian Industrial Relations Act of 1967. In January 2002, the Minister of Human Resources in Malaysia ordered the company to recognise the MIEU. But Top Thermo contested the decision by filing an application in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in August 2002. The High Court ruled in favour of the company in March 2003 and MTUC therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.
Developments The Japanese NCP acknowledged receipt of the case, but has awaited the outcome of the parallel proceedings.
Outcome On 12 February 2012 the Japanese NCP closed the case. It reported that it had carried out fact-finding in Malaysia and contacted the parties and had found out that the parties had signed a collective agreement in July 2011. This followed the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the trade union case. As the issues have been resolved the Japanese NCP congratulated the parties in its published Initial Assessment and closed the case.

Organisations

Lead NCP Japan NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Top Thermo Manufacturers

Complainants

Lead Complainant MTUC- Malaysia : National Centre 
Affected Party Metal Industry Employees Union : National 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