Hewlett Packard V FNV

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 03/09/2002
Date Closed 01/01/2004
Case Duration 69 weeks and 2 days
Host Country Netherlands  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Abrupt closure of an assembly plant, set up with considerable financial assistance by local, regional and national Government
Provisions Cited IV.3  IV.6  IV.8   
Case Description In September 2002, the Dutch trade union confederation the FNV submitted a case to the Dutch NCP concerning the behaviour of Sanmina-SCI, a computer assembly firm and subsidiary of Hewlett Packard. The Sanmina plant had been set up with the financial support of the Dutch Government and was closed abruptly without any prior information being provided to workers. In addition, workers’ representatives had not been allowed to negotiate with the management of the plant.
Developments The FNV withdrew part of the case in December 2002 after successful negotiations with Sanmina-SCI on the development of a social plan. But the FNV contended that the NCP should continue to examine the company’s failure to provide reasonable notice of closures to and cooperate with representatives of the relevant governmental authorities so as to mitigate adverse effects to the fullest extent practicable as required under paragraph 6 of Chapter IV on Employment and Industrial Relations.

The NCP did not respond to this demand.

Outcome In January 2004, the FNV was informed that the NCP was not going to pursue the matter further.

Organisations

Lead NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Hewlett Packard (Home country: US)
Subsidiary Sanmina-SCI (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