PSA Peugot Citroën V Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union (T&G)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 28/07/2006
Date Closed 01/02/2008
Case Duration 79 weeks and 0 days
Host Country UK  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Plant closure
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.2-b  IV.2-c  IV.3  IV.4-a  IV.6   
Case Description Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union (T&G) jointly addressed the UK NCP at the end of July 2006 concerning the closure of the PSA Peugeot Citroën car manufacturing plant of Ryton. On 18 April 2006, the chief executive of Peugeot informed the unions that the company had decided to close the plant ignoring the obligation to consult and negotiate with the unions prior to the decision. Regardless of repeated efforts by the unions to discuss the closure with Peugeot, it refused to enter into any consultations or negotiations.
Developments The NCP replied in November 2006 that it was seeking further clarification from Peugeot. It also inquired whether the unions had taken any action under the provisions of UK legislation. In addition, it stated that the French NCP was fully informed.
Outcome On 1 February 2008, the UK NCP published its statement finding that PSA Peugeot Citroën had failed to fulfil the requirements under the Guidelines: In particular, the company should have given reasonable notice of the closure and engaged with the unions. The UK NCP found that PSA Peugeot Citroën 'did not provide sufficient information to the unions to allow them to undertake meaningful negotiations with the company". The NCP also recommended the company to engage with unions and provide adequate information for meaningful negotiations to take place. In particular, it should meet the requirements on "fair consultation as defined by ‘R v British Coal’ 1994" .

Organisations

Lead NCP UK NCP : Bi-ministerial plus Multi-stakeholder Independent Board 

Companies

Multinational Company PSA Peugot Citroën (Home country: France)

Complainants

Lead Complainant T&G : National Union 
Lead Complainant Amicus : National Union 

Related Documents

UK NCP  [Publication date: 1/2/2008] 'FINAL ASSESSMENT BY THE UK NATIONAL CONTACT POINT FOR THE OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES: PSA PEUGEOT CITROEN'
   http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47348.doc [Date URL accessed: 5/7/2009]

UK NCP  [Publication date: 1/2/2008] 'FINAL ASSESSMENT BY THE UK NATIONAL CONTACT POINT FOR THE OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES: PSA PEUGEOT CITROEN'
   http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47348.doc [Date URL accessed: 17/4/2010]

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

Implications

Note cross-reference to UK law