Gard V International Transport Workers Federation (ITF)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/12/2002
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Philippines  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Financial Services 

Transport 

Issue(s) Contractual benefits, health benefits
Provisions Cited II.1  II.2  II.5  II.6  II.7  VII.3  VII.4   
Case Description In November 2002, the International Transport Workers's Federation (ITF) filed a case with the Norwegian NCP regarding the behaviour of the Norwegian insurance company Gard. The ITF alleged that Gard had refused to pay contractual benefits to seafarers and their families in personal injury and death cases. Furthermore, it had not honoured obligations to provide basic health care benefits for injured seafarers. The ITF alleged that the company had thereby breached provisions of Chapter II, General Policies and Chapter VII, Consumer Interests. The NCP, however, considered that the case was more relevant to Chapter IV, Employment and Industrial Relations, on the grounds that the issue concerned an employer-employee relationship rather than a customer relationship, even though the matter concerned the employer’s insurance company and the employees.
Outcome In December 2002, the NCP concluded that Gard had not violated the Guidelines. The decision was based on the fact that the arrangements were in accordance with Philippine law. There were agreements between the worker organisations and the employer organisations/shipping companies on the arrangement, and according to the Norwegian Embassy, the Supreme Court had decided that it was 'lawful'. The Embassy also stated that these arrangements were normal insurance practices in the Philippines in this field of business.

Organisations

Lead NCP Norway NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Gard (Home country: Norway)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) : Global Union Federation 

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 Norwegian NCP is tripartite, and the conclusion of the NCP was agreed together with the social partners. According to the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), the choice of statutory authority to deal with the complaint could have been discussed. Furthermore, LO considered it a problem that the ITF did not discuss the matter with the Norwegian Seamen’s Union before submitting it to the NCP highlighting the need for better coordination on the trade union side.

Implications

The NCP found that there was no violation of the Guidelines because it was in accordace with domestic law.