Siemens V Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 05/06/2001
Date Closed 27/11/2001
Case Duration 25 weeks and 0 days
Host Country Czech Republic  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation, working conditions, lack of negotiations
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Related Cases Bosch V Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Union (CMKOS)
Case Description In June 2001, the Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions raised a case with the Czech NCP concerning a Czech subsidiary of the German-owned multinational Siemens. Conflict arose as a result of worsening labour conditions at the plant and management's refusal to negotiate with the trade union.
Developments The Czech NCP informed the local German Embassy about the case and also discussed the case with the German NCP. The intervention of the parent company played a role in contributing to the solution.
Outcome The parties reached an agreement relatively soon after entering into the negotiations, and after the introduction of new 'Principles for Personnel Policy'. These principles embodded the trade union's requirements and were reported to be being complied with in the company's operating practices.

Organisations

Lead NCP Czech Republic NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Siemens (Home country: Germany)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CMKOS Českomoravská konfederace odborových svazů : 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

TUAC Assessment

The case provides an example of the positive impact of cooperation between the social partners as well as the effective role that can be played by an NCP. As a result, new activities were agreed to deepen and broaden the role of the NCP and its direct co-operation with the social partners.

Implications

Involvement of the home NCP and the parent company