Parmalat V CUT-Brazil

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 26/09/2002
Date Closed 01/04/2003
Case Duration 26 weeks and 5 days
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Transfer of production and dismissal of workers without prior consultation.
Provisions Cited IV.3   
Case Description The Brazilian trade union confederation CUT presented a case to the Brazilian NCP regarding the Italian food company Parmalat at the end of September 2002. The Italian trade unions also brought the case to the attention of the Italian NCP requesting the two NCPs to collaborate. Parmalat had decided in June 2002 to transfer the production in a factory in Porto Alegre and to dismiss half of the workforce, without prior consultations with the trade union. This was considered a breach of the Guidelines.

In October, the CUT was invited to a first meeting with the NCP. It was decided that the NCP would convene another meeting with the CUT and Parmalat. This meeting was held in March 2003. Parmalat claimed that the workers had been given prior notice and that a collective agreement had been signed wit h the union, while the CUT maintained that the workers had not been informed before the final decision had been taken.

Outcome In April 2003, the NCP concluded that Parmalat had not tried to find an alternative solution to the closure of the plant in co-operation with the workers and the government authorities as stipulated in the Guidelines. The NCP recommended that Parmalat improve its procedures in such cases in the future.

However, the unions reported that the statement did not have an impact.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 
Supporting NCP Italy NCP : Single Government Department with NCP Committee 

Companies

Multinational Company Parmalat (Home country: Italy)

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

TUAC Assessment

The NCP's conclusion supported the facts put forward by CUT, but CUT considered that the wording of the NCP's statement could have been stronger. (The NCP’s first draft conclusion had been even weaker, but the CUT insisted on having the text changed.)