Honda V International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 01/02/2003
Date Closed 01/08/2003
Case Duration 25 weeks and 6 days
Host Country Indonesia  (OECD Enhanced Engagement)
Sector Automotive 
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description The International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF) raised the conduct of a subsidiary to Honda in Indonesia with the Japanese NCP in February 2003. After wage negotiations had broken down, workers at Honda Prospect Motor Indonesia went on a legal strike. Honda responded by dismissing 208 workers. Later, an additional 160 workers were fired. Although the Indonesian Labour Dispute Arbitration Committee had ruled that the strike was legally convened and ordered Honda to reinstate the workers, Honda defied the decision of the Arbitration Committee.
Developments The NCP met separately with Honda and the trade union organisations RENGO and IMF-JC to discuss the case.
Outcome In its conclusion dated August 2003, the NCP noted that Honda had reaffirmed its intention to abide by the court decision and that most of the workers concerned had reached an agreement with Honda to retire with severance pay.

Organisations

Lead NCP Japan NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Honda (Home country: Japan)
Subsidiary Honda Prospect Motor Indonesia (Home country: Indonesia)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Metalworkers' Federation - IMF : 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

It appears that the NCP defended the company position rather than trying to mediate in a serious breach of the Guidelines.

Implications

Parallel Proceedings