Vale do Rio Doce SA V CUT Brazil

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 05/03/2009
Case Duration 510 weeks and 3 days so far
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Mining 
Issue(s) Failure to consult with trade union on laying off workers and breaching the collective bargaining agreement
Provisions Cited IV.6   
Case Description In March 2009, CUT Brazil raised a complaint with the Brazilian NCP against Vale do Rio Doce SA for having laid off 1,300 workers during December 2008 and January 2009.

CUT alleges that Vale had entered into an illegal emergency agreement with trade union representatives regarding a salary reduction of 50%, which CUT maintains contravenes Law No. 4923/1965, which provides that: reductions in salary can only take place after 3 months; that the remuneration, employment and bonuses for managers and executives should be reduced in the same proportion as that of employees; and that conclusion of such agreements and collective agreements should be subject to prior and clear documentary evidence.

Outcome The trade unions resolved the issues before the NCP reached any decision.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Vale do Rio Doce SA (Home country: Brazil)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CUT Brazil - Central Única dos Trabalhadores : 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 is a Brazilian multinational operating in the Brazilian market