Philips V CUT Brazil

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 06/08/2007
Date Closed 01/10/2007
Case Duration 8 weeks and 0 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Electrical and Electronics 
Issue(s) Improper involvement in local politics in Brazil
Provisions Cited II.11   
Case Description In August 2007 the Brazilian trade union confederation CUT, raised a case with the Brazilian and Dutch NCPs concerning Philip’s improper involvement in local politics in Brazil. CUT alleges that Philips actively supported a movement called 'Cansei' meaning 'I am done', publishing front page newspaper articles calling on its employees, suppliers and customers to join the movement. The movement is political and run by an economic elite. According to the CUT, it appears that the purpose of the movement was to overthrow the government. Philips has allegedly funded newspaper advertisements asking people to support the movement.
Outcome In October 2007 the Brazilian NCP rejected the case. It published a Final Statement on the 8 August 2013.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 
Supporting NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Philips (Home country: Netherlands)
Subsidiary Philips do Brasil (Home country: Brazil)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CUT Brazil - Central Única dos Trabalhadores : National Centre 

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