Wärtsilä V FNV

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 01/12/2001
Date Closed 31/12/2001
Case Duration 4 weeks and 2 days
Host Country Netherlands  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Closure without consultation or notice
Provisions Cited II.1  IV.3  IV.6   
Case Description The closure of a subsidiary of Wärtsilä, a Finnish company producing ship engines, in the Netherlands was raised by the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV) with the Dutch NCP at the end of December 2001. The company decided to move the plant to Trieste in Italy without any prior information or consultations with the trade union to mitigate the negative effects. Considering the large amounts of public funds that had been transferred to the company, FNV also referred to paragraph 1 in the chapter on General Policies. Furthermore, FNV requested the Dutch NCP to cooperate with the NCPs in Finland and Italy.
Outcome In the final negotiations with Wärtsilä, the trade unions agreed to withdraw the part of the case regarding the chapter on Employment and Industrial Relations from the NCP. In exchange, 440 jobs were saved. However, the part that concerned the government funds that had been transferred to the company was never settled. The NCP asserted that the local authorities had other ways to address the issue. The case was therefore considered to be closed in 2001, when it was partly withdrawn by the FNV.

Organisations

Lead NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 
Supporting NCP Finland NCP : Quadripartite (involving several Ministries, the social partners and NGOs) 
Supporting NCP Italy NCP : Single Government Department with NCP Committee 

Companies

Multinational Company Wärtsilä (Home country: Finland)

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