ABN Amro Bank V UNITE-HERE

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 01/03/2005
Date Closed 12/07/2005
Case Duration 19 weeks and 0 days
Host Country US  (OECD member)
Sector Financial Services 
Issue(s) Socially responsible investment; due diligence of the financial sector
Provisions Cited II.2  II.10   
Related Cases Angelica Textile Services V UNITE-HERE
Life Uniform V UNITE-HERE and CATY

Case Description In March 2005, UNITE-HERE filed a case with the US NCP regarding the operations of ABN Amro Bank. UNITE-HERE argued that the Bank as a major investor should encourage Angelica, to 'apply principles of corporate conduct compatible with the Guidelines'. Despite being informed of the alleged violations of the Guidelines by Angelica and in spite of its unilateral commitment not to engage with business partners that do not respect human rights, ABN Amro Bank had increased its investment in Angelica. It had also refused to meet with UNITE-HERE to discuss how to encourage Angelica to follow the Guidelines.
Outcome UNITE-HERE withdrew the case in July 2005 after reaching an agreement with Angelica. The agreement included secured contracts that would improve immigrant rights, employees` pension plan, wages and health and safety. The contracts also included an improved definition of seniority.

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Angelica Textile Services (Home country: US)
Financier ABN Amro Bank (Home country: Netherlands)

Complainants

Lead Complainant UNITE-HERE : Regional/state sectoral union 
Supporting Complainant FNV Bondgenoten : 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

This case concerns the obligations of banks and other financial institutions to carry out human rights due diligence of its clients