Daewoo and Korea Gas Corporation V Shwe Gas Campaign

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 29/10/2008
Date Closed 27/11/2008
Case Duration 29 days
Host Country Burma  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Oil and Gas 
Issue(s) Forced Labour in Burma
Provisions Cited II.1  II.2  III.1  IV.1-c  V.2-a  V.2-b  V.3   
Case Description In October 2008, a coalition of NGOs, together with the two Korean trade union confederations KCTU and FKTU, contacted the Korean NCP in October 2008 with regards to human rights, including labour rights, abuses in Burma related to the activities of Daewoo International and the Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS) and the Shwe natural gas project, located on the west coast of Burma.
Outcome The Korean NCP rejected the case on the basis that several of the alleged impacts were potential rather than actual and on acceptance at face value of information provided by the companies involved.

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Korea Gas Corporation (Home country: South Korea)
Multinational Company Daewoo (Home country: South Korea)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Earthrights International : Environmental 
Lead Complainant FKTU - Federation of Korean Trade Unions : National Centre 
Lead Complainant KCTU- Korea : National Centre 

Related Documents

The Irawaddy  [Publication date: 4/8/2009] 'Total Chief: Critics Can ‘Go to Hell’'
   http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16479 [Date URL accessed: 6/8/2009]

Earthrights International  [Publication date: 15/6/2009] 'Korean Government Fails to Investigate Korean Corporations’ Involvement in Abuses in Burma'
   http://www.earthrights.org/content/view/679/114/ [Date URL accessed: 7/8/2009]

Earthrights International  [Publication date: 15/6/2009] 'A Governance Gap: The Failure of the Korean Government to hold Korean Corporations Accountable to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises Regarding Violations in Burma'
   http://www.earthrights.org/files/Reports/A-Governance-Gap-Report.pdf# [Date URL accessed: 7/8/2009]

Shan Herald  [Publication date: 9/12/2011] 'Activists condemn Norway’s refusal to heed Council of Ethics’ warning on pipeline investments in Burma'
   http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4263:activ
   ists-condemn-norways-refusal-to-heed-council-of-ethics-warning-on-pipeline-inves
   tments-in-burma&catid=102:mailbox&Itemid=279
[Date URL accessed: 27/2/2012]

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

TUAC Assessment

Both the process and the outcome are wholly unsatisfactory. The decision of the Korean NCP runs counter to previous commitments made by the OECD with regard to Burma and reflects a pattern of decision-making that raises a question over the performance of the Korean NCP.

Implications

Decision undermines the use of the Guidelines to contribute to the elimination of forced labour in Burma.