Cosmos Mack Industries Ltd. V Free Trade Zone Workers’ Union (FTZWU)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/11/2001
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Sri Lanka  (Non-adhering country)
Issue(s) Right to trade union
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description The Free Trade Zone Workers’ Union (FTZWU) in Sri Lanka approached the Korean NCP in November 2001 about the anti-union practices of Cosmos Mack Industries Ltd. The company had refused to recognise the trade union. Furthermore, it was alleged that the company had intimidated the workers and fired key trade union members.
Developments The Korean NCP stated in its annual report 2003 that it had investigated the case and that the company was a joint venture between a Korean and a Sri Lankan company. It claimed that it was the Sri Lankan company that was responsible for labour issues and not the Korean company.
Outcome The NCP considered that the responsibilities should be shared between the joint venture partners and it recommended that the company conform to the Guidelines.

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Joint Venture Cosmos Mack Industries Ltd

Complainants

Lead Complainant FTZWU - Free Trade Zone Workers’ Union : National Union 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment?
Did the case involve parallel proceedings?
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case?
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary?
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case?
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case?
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation?
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation?
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation?
Was mediation or conciliation held?
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator?
Did the parties reach agreement?
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties?
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines?
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding?
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines?
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report?
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations?
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report?
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report?
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case?
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance?
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case?
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved?
Did the lead NCP play a positive role?
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role?

Implications

There was an investment nexus but the South Korean NCP found that complaint was outside the scope of the company's responsibility