Chong Won Trading V Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and Chongwon Union (Philippines)

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 03/09/2007
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Philippines  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Textiles, Leather and Garments 
Issue(s) Threat to close down the factory should the union be formed: right to trade union representation; bribery
Provisions Cited I.7  IV.1-a  IV.2-a  IV.2-b  IV.7  VI.1   
Case Description In September 2007, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), together with NGOs and the Chongwon Union in the Philippines, submitted a case to the Korean NCP concerning Chongwon Fashion, a subsidiary of the Korean company Chong Won Trading based in the Philippines. This was the first case to be submitted to the Korean NCP.

In 2001, the workers sought to stablish a trade union at the Chongwon Fashion plant in the Philippines, whereupon the management threatened to close down should the union be formed. As a result, the union lost the election.

In 2004, a new election was held, which the union won. Nevertheless, the company continued to question the election result by filing several court petitions, each of which they lost.

The management tried to make the union leaders resign through various threats. This, together with other harassments, lead to a strike in August 2006. The workers were violently dispersed by police and security guards. New strikes were held the following month. Workers, most of them women, were then beaten by police and security guards. In addition, the management decided to dismiss 71 of the workers on strike. But the strikes continued and in June 2007 workers received death threats if they did not stop the strikes.

In February 2007, the Philippine Department of Labour and Employment (DOLE) declared that the union did no longer represent the workers. The union believed that the company offered a bribe. It also brought charges against the mediator of the National Relations Commission for taking bribes.

In June 2007, the company filed for bankruptcy.
Outcome The Korean NCP rejected the case on the grounds that bankruptcy made "arbitration needless".

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Chong Won Trading (Home country: South Korea)
Subsidiary Chong Won Fashion (Home country: Philippines)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Chongwon Union : Local Union 
Lead Complainant KCTU- Korea : 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?

Implications

The decision not take up cases where the company involved has filed for bankruptcy