Mittal Steel Group V BNS

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/12/2005
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Romania  (Adhering Country)
Sector Metal Products 
Issue(s) Depriving workers of the right to organise
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In December 2005, the Romanian national trade union centre, BNS, raised a case with the Romanian NCP concerning the operations of Mittal Steel Group - the world’s largest steel producer, which is headquartered in the Netherlands. The trade unions contended that Mittal Steel Group had violated paragraphs 1, 7 and 8 of Chapter IV of the Guidelines Employment and Industrial Relations at two plants in Romania. The company had, inter alia, prevented employees from exercising their right to organise. The union members had been moved to other parts of the plant and the payment of union fees were being prevented. On 1 December 2005, 15 workers started a hunger strike in protest over their trade union rights being violated.
Developments In the NCP’s report to the Annual Meeting of NCPs in June 2006, it presented three arguments for not accepting the case: the adversity and the availability of the parties involved; the limited resources and information available to the NCP; and the possibility of what the NCP called an 'inmixture' in justice.

Organisations

Lead NCP Romania NCP : Bipartite 

Companies

Multinational Company Mittal Steel Group (Home country: Netherlands)

Complainants

Lead Complainant BNS National Trade Union Bloc : 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

Implications

This case raises question marks over the objectivity of the NCP and NCP structures, which involve employers, but not trade unions