IHC Caland (Burma) V FNV and CNV

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 23/07/2001
Date Closed 01/07/2004
Case Duration 153 weeks and 3 days
Host Country Burma  (Non-adhering country)
Issue(s) Forced labour in Burma and human rights
Provisions Cited II.2  IV.1-c   
Case Description In July 2001, the Dutch unions requested the Dutch NCP to look into the association of the Dutch dredging company IHC Caland with the use of forced labour in Burma. They also asked the NCP to contact the French NCP. Since IHC Caland was a subcontractor to Premier Oil, the Trades Union Congress urged the UK NCP to consider the role of Premier Oil and to co-operate with the Dutch NCP.
Developments A tripartite meeting was held in March 2002, more than half a year after the case had been raised. It resulted in a separate meeting between the social partners in July 2002. IHC Caland later declared afterwards that it would withdraw from Burma when its contract expired in 2013. The Dutch unions and IHC Caland also met with the Burmese Embassy to protest against the use of forced labour.
Outcome In September 2002, Premier Oil announced its withdrawal from Burma.

The social partners reached an agreement in July 2003. A draft declaration was presented by the NCP six months later, but it was not accepted by the trade unions. On l July 2004, the NCP issued a joint tripartite statement .

The company was taken over by Petronas, a Malaysian enterprise. In November 2003, IHC Caland wrote a letter to Petronas requesting it to observe the Guidelines.

A follow-up meeting, involving FNV representatives, took place in January 2006.

Organisations

Lead NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 
Supporting NCP UK NCP : Bi-ministerial plus Multi-stakeholder Independent Board 
Supporting NCP France NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 

Companies

Multinational Company IHC Caland (Home country: Netherlands)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CNV : National Centre 
Lead Complainant FNV Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging : National Centre 

Related Documents

Dutch NCP  [Publication date: 1/7/2004] 'JOINT STATEMENT BY THE NCP, FNV, CNV and IHC CALAND'
   http://www.oesorichtlijnen.nl/wp-content/uploads/NCP/Verklaringen/Joint%20state
   ment%20IHC-FNVCNV.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 26/1/2010]

Netherlands NCP  [Publication date: 20/8/2010] 'Follow up SBM & FNV on Burma'
   http://www.oecdguidelines.nl/nieuws/follow-up-sbm-fnv-on-birma/ [Date URL accessed: 1/3/2012]

Netherlands NCP  'IHC CALAND, FNV, CNV Complaint: Background Document'
   http://www.oesorichtlijnen.nl/wp-content/uploads/NCP/Verklaringen/Background%20
   IHC-FNVCNV.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 1/3/2012]

Netherlands NCP  [Publication date: 1/7/2004] 'JOINT STATEMENT BY THE NCP, FNV, CNV and IHC CALAND'
   http://www.oesorichtlijnen.nl/wp-content/uploads/NCP/Verklaringen/Joint%20state
   ment%20IHC-FNVCNV.pdf
[Date URL accessed: 1/3/2012]

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 case had a positive outcome in terms of both the company agreeing to pull out of Burma, after the end of its existing contract and company tooks steps to write to its contractor to ask for steps to be taken to address the human rights situation.

More negatively the length of time taken to compelte the case highlighted the failure of the NCP to manage the process within a reasonable timeframe and the need for NCPs to set and adhere to strict timetable.

Implications

Need for strict timescales