Sees Corporation V Progress Union

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 01/11/2002
Date Closed 01/12/2002
Case Duration 4 weeks and 2 days
Host Country Sri Lanka  (Non-adhering country)
Provisions Cited II.5  IV.2-a   
Case Description In November 2002, the Sri Lankan trade union the Progress Union,submitted a case to the Korean NCP regarding the activities of the Sri Lankan subsidiary Sees Lanka Limited of the Korean multinational enterrpises Sees Corporation. Sees Lanka Limited, a sportswear manufacturer, had stopped paying salaries once it made its decision to close its bag section. Under Sri Lankan law, the company should have continued to pay wages until a government inquiry into the closure had been completed.
Outcome In December 2002, the Progress Union reached a settlement with the management of Sees Lanka, whereby all workers were compensated. The case was therefore withdrawn.

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Sees Corporation

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

TUAC Assessment

It appears that this is an ownership relationship but it is not entirely clear.