Chemie Pharmacie Holland BV V FNV

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 04/12/2002
Date Closed 01/05/2005
Case Duration 125 weeks and 4 days
Host Country Democratic Republic of Congo  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 
Issue(s) Congo Case
Provisions Cited II.1  II.2  II.10  II.11   
Case Description In December 2002, the Dutch national trade union centre, the FNV, submitted a request to the Dutch NCP to investigate allegations against Chemie Pharmacie Holland BV, which was one of 85 multinational enterprises considered to have violated the OECD MNE Guidelines by the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in its report of 16 October 2002.
Developments In January 2003, the chair of the OECD Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (CIME) requested the UN Panel to provide the NCPs with further information in order to investigate the cases. According to the final report of the Panel in October 2003, the company had not reacted to the allegations in the previous report.

The issue was also debated in the Dutch parliament with questions put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Outcome The case was formally raised by Dutch NGOs in July 2003 to follow up the UN report. The Dutch NCP rejected the case on the grounds of a lack of an investment nexus. Nevertheless, it published a statement on "lessons learned" after having met with the parties involved.

Organisations

Lead NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Chemie Pharmacie Holland (Home country: Netherlands)

Complainants

Lead Complainant FNV Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging : 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

The case was rejected on the basis of a lack of an investment nexus - in other words because the violation did not concern the company itself or a subsidiary of the company.