Glencore International A.G. V CUT Peru

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 23/03/2009
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Peru  (Adhering Country)
Sector Mining 
Issue(s) Termination of operations carried out by contracted mining companies without informing or consulting the workers
Provisions Cited I.7  I.10  II.1  II.9  III.1  III.2  IV.2-b  IV.2-c  IV.3  IV.6   
Case Description In March 2009, the Central Nacional de la Mujer Minera del Peru and CUT PERU raised a complaint with the Peruvian NCP concerning 47 miners, contracted workers at Perubar S.A.’s Rosaura Mining Unit, which were allegedly illegally dismissed when Perubar decided to suspend operations at its Rosaura unit. The trade unions contend that Peruba terminated operations carried out by contracted mining companies at its mining unit Rosaura, without informing or consulting the workers. Perubar illegally laid off workers, intimidating them into signing resignation letters by threatening not to pay them their due salaries and social benefits. In the weeks preceding their lay off, all of the contracted miners working at the Rosaura unit were subject to harassment. The company reduced production and ordered workers to take forced leave. Furthermore, it failed to make clear the reasons for terminating operations at Rosaura.

The case was also filed with the Swiss NCP.
Developments Followiing a number of follow-up contacts in Peru, as well as meetings held in Paris, on the 30 April 2010, the Peruvian NCP first rejected the case on the grounds of parallel legal proceedings. At the same time, however, it communicated that it would seek to secure mediation with Glencore as part of the legal proceedings.

In June 2010, it was confirmed that Glencore had agreed to mediation in the context of the hearings to be convened by the labour court. However, this is likely to be subject to long time delays.

The OECD reports that in February 2014, CUTadvised the NCP that the first judgment of the judicial process had been issued. CUT requested that the NCP reconnect with the company in order to try to reach an out-of-court settlement. Accordingly the NCP met with both parties but Glencore failed to participate in mediation.
Outcome The case is closed. As of June 2015, no Final Statement has been published by the NCP.

Organisations

Lead NCP Peru NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP Switzerland NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Glencore International AG (Home country: Switzerland)
Subsidiary Minera Perubar S.A. (Home country: Peru)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CNMM Peru : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant CUT Perú : National Centre 
Supporting Complainant International Metalworkers' Federation - IMF : Global Union Federation 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment?
Did the case involve parallel proceedings?
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case?
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary?
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case?
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case?
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation?
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation?
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation?
Was mediation or conciliation held?
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator?
Did the parties reach agreement?
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties?
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines?
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding?
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines?
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report?
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations?
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report?
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report?
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case?
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance?
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case?
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved?
Did the lead NCP play a positive role?
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role?

TUAC Assessment

It is highly unusual for an NCP to seek mediation in the context of the court process.

Implications

Need for provision of capacity-building for newly-established NCPs so as to accelerate start-up; need for common guidance on handling cases involving parallel legal proceedings