Bayer V DGB

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 27/06/2003
Date Closed 29/06/2007
Case Duration 209 weeks and 0 days
Host Country Philippines  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 
Issue(s) Right to trade union representations Establishing a 'yellow' union
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.2-a  IV.2-b  IV.2-c  IV.3  IV.5  IV.6  IV.8   
Case Description In June 2003, the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB) forwarded a submission by the Employees Union of Bayer Philippines (EUBP) to the German NCP. It requested the NCP to assemble an extraordinary meeting at the beginning of September to discuss the case. The EUBP argued that Bayer Philippines had set up a company union to replace the EUBP and to prevent the workers from organising. After a ruling by the Philippine Supreme Court in 2002, Bayer recognised the EUBP as the lawful union. However, before the recognition, EUBP members had been dismissed and the union membership dues had been transferred to the yellow union.
Developments After examining the case, the NCP convened a meeting in October 2004 to discuss the issue with both parties. It was agreed that the parties needed to provide further information because of the complexity of the case.
Outcome After lengthy negotiations, the case was finally resolved in June 2007. It was agreed that Bayer would make a payment to the EUBP compensating for the loss of union membership dues and to the former president of the EUBP compensating for the termination of his employment in 2000. A joint declaration by the NCP and the parties involved is available on the German NCP's website .

Organisations

Lead NCP Germany NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Bayer (Home country: Germany)
Subsidiary Bayer Philippines (Home country: Philippines)

Complainants

Lead Complainant EUBP Employees Union of Bayer Philippines : Company Union 
Supporting Home Country Trade Union DGB - Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund : National Centre 

Related Documents

German NCP  [Publication date: 29/6/2007] 'Statement by the German National Contact Point for the ‘OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ on a Specific Instance brought by the DGB against Bayer AG'
   http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/E/erklaerung-der-deutschen-nationalen-kon
   taktstelle-f_C3_BCr-die-oecd-leitsaetze-englisch,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprac
   he=de,rwb=true.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 6/8/2009]

German NCP  [Publication date: 29/6/2007] 'Erklärung der deutschen Nationalen Kontaktstelle für die ‚OECD-Leitsätze für multinationale Unternehmen‘ zu einer Beschwerde des DGB gegenüber Bayer AG (EUBP-FFW ./. Bayer Philippines)'
   http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/E/erklaerung-der-deutschen-nationalen-kon
   taktstelle-fuer-oecd-leitsaetze,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprache=de,rwb=true.pd
   f
[Date URL accessed: 6/8/2009]

[Publication date: 1/12/2008] 'FILLING THE GAP: A NEW BODY TO INVESTIGATE, SANCTION AND PROVIDE REMEDIES FOR ABUSES COMMITTED BY UK COMPANIES ABROAD A report prepared for the Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition' by December 2008
   http://corporate-responsibility.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Filling-the-G
   ap_dec08.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 25/3/2010]

German NCP  [Publication date: 29/6/2007] 'Statement by the German National Contact Point for the ‘OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ on a Specific Instance brought by the DGB against Bayer AG (EUBP-FFW ./. Bayer Philippines)'
   http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/PDF/E/erklaerung-der-deutschen-nationalen-kon
   taktstelle-f_C3_BCr-die-oecd-leitsaetze-englisch,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi,sprac
   he=de,rwb=true.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 16/4/2010]

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

The case highlighted the need for parties to submit good qualtiy information; timescales