Fine Corporation V ITGLWF

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 22/09/2008
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Sri Lanka  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Textiles, Leather and Garments 
Issue(s) Unpaid wages
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In September 2008, the Global Union Federation (GUF), the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) submitted a letter to the Korean NCP that reported unpaid liabilities owed by Fine Lanka Luggage (Pvt) Ltd, a subsidiary of the Korean company, the Fine Corporation. In 2000, the ITGLF contended that the Fine Lanka plant in Sri Lanka was closed with the purpose of removing the trade union. It later re-opened, but refused to re-employ many of the union members. In April 2006, the arbitrator in Sri Lanka ruled that the company should reimburse the salaries and allowances of 388 workers corresponding to the period 2000-2006. However, by this time the owners of the subsidiary had left Sri Linka. The Fine Corporation has yet to cover its subsidiary’s legal liabilities in accordance with the arbitration ruling.
Outcome In December 2008, the Korean NCP stating that the Korean company had ceased to operate. In January 2009, the ITGLWF wrote back asking if the Korean NCP could take steps to trace the company. The Korean NCP did not respond. The ITGLWF wrote again after the Sri Lankan courts ordered the company to appear in court in October 2009 to ask if the Korean NCP could find the company owners and give them a copy of the court summons. To date the Korean NCP has not replied.

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Fine Corporation (Home country: South Korea)
Subsidiary Fine Lanka Luggage (Pvt) Ltd (Home country: Sri Lanka)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers Federation : Global Union Federation 
Affected Party Free Trade Zones and General Services Employees Union : National Union 

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

Challenge of using the Guidelines in case where the relevant company has fled the country