Laurens van der Kroft Textiel V the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 04/12/2006
Date Closed 03/05/2007
Case Duration 21 weeks and 3 days
Host Country Turkey  (OECD member)
Sector Textiles, Leather and Garments 
Issue(s) Forced resignation of union members and relocation without consultation with union members
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.6   
Case Description The International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) registered a case with the Turkish NCP in December 2006 concerning the actions of Guidelines by the Turkish textile company Metraco. Since the majority shareholder of Metraco was a Dutch company, Laurens van der Kroft Textiel, the case was also raised with the Dutch NCP. This was the first case raised with the Turkish NCP. Metraco is alleged to have suppressed workers’ efforts to organise. When workers started joining the union in February 2006, 16 union members were forced to resign. In November 2006, the company announced that it was going to relocate its production, but it did not inform the union. The Dutch trade union confederation FNV also wrote to the Dutch NCP requesting it to investigate the case and to contact the Turkish NCP.
Developments In May 2007, the Turkish NCP replied that it had closed the case. It claimed that Turkish law prevented it from handling the case where there were parallel legal proceedings.
Outcome In September 2007, despite the lack of action by the Turkish NCP, an agreement was reached. It , however, which stipulated that Metraco Ithalat Ihracat ve Tıcaret Ltd would reinstate the 12 members of the Dısk/Tekstıl Iscılerı Sendıkası and whose labour contracts were termınated on or around the period from February, 2006 to Aprıl, 2006 with immediate effect and wıth average earnıngs sınce the date of their dısmıssal. Any of these workers who have already accepted severance payments or other compensatıon and who wısh to return wıll be requıred to repay all such sums receıved.ting that 12 trade union members would be reinstated with retrospective alaries since the date of their dismissal. The dismissed workers that had already accepted severance pay would have to return the compensation in order to be reinstated. In the agreement, Metraco acknowledged the union and agreed to begin negotiations over a collective bargaining agreement.

Organisations

Lead NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 
Lead NCP Turkey NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Laurens van der Kroft Textiel (Home country: Netherlands)
Subsidiary Metraco (Home country: Turkey)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers Federation : Global Union Federation 
Affected Party Tekstil/Disk : Company Union 

Related Documents

[Publication date: 24/9/2007] 'AGREEMENT BETWEEN METRACO ITHALAT IHRACAT VE TICARET LTD AND DISK/TEKSTIL ISCILERI SENDIKASI REACHED ON MONDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2007.' [Date URL accessed: 7/8/2009]

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

The trade unions considered that neither the Turkish nor the Dutch NCPs acted to suppotr the case. For example, the Dutch NCP stated that it was unable to track down the Dutch co-owner, whereas the Dutch trade unions were able to do this. The trade unions consider that pressure from the company’s customers was important in achieving this result, which resulted from the campaigning work of trade unions and NGOs.

Implications

Parallel legal proceedings: the Turkish NCOP states that Turkish Law prohibits it from taking action where there are parallel legal proceedings

NCP cooperation: the Dutch NCP was involved though it did not play a positive role.

Confidentiality/campaigns: the unions considered that pressure from the company’s customers was an important success factor as well as the campaign work carried out by the unions and NGOs. T