Continental V SNRTE

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/05/2002
Date Closed 01/01/2005
Case Duration 139 weeks and 3 days
Host Country Mexico  (OECD member)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Closure of a factory without prior information being provided to the workers
Provisions Cited II.2  IV.1-a  IV.6  IV.7   
Case Description The two NGOs Germanwatch and FIAN submitted a case to the German NCP on behalf of the Mexican union SNRTE concerning the closure of a subsidiary of Continental (Euzkadi) in Mexico in May 2002. The factory was closed without any prior information being given to the workers.
Developments The German NCP met with a trade union delegation from Mexico. It was then decided to transfer the case to the Mexican NCP, in line with the procedural guidance that requires that the host not the home NCP should play the lead role in resolving a case.
Outcome In January 2005, an agreement was reached allowing the union to re-open the plant as a cooperative in a joint venture with the Mexican investor group Llanti Systems.

Organisations

Lead NCP Mexico NCP : Single Government Department 
Supporting NCP Germany NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Continental (Home country: Germany)
Subsidiary Continental Euzkadi (Home country: Mexico)

Complainants

Lead Complainant FIAN
Lead Complainant Germanwatch
Affected Party SNRTE

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 Mexican NCP was criticised by trade unions for not playing a constructive role in the resolution of the case.