Kiswire V Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 20/05/2003
Date Closed 01/06/2006
Case Duration 158 weeks and 2 days
Host Country Malaysia  (Non-adhering country)
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In May 2003, the MTUC submitted a case to the Korean NCP regarding the anti-union behaviour of the subsidiary of the Korean -based company Kiswire Ltd. It had among other things refused to recognise the elected trade union, dismissed the trade union organisers and adopted discriminatory practices against union members.
Developments In April 2004, the NCP stated that it had not received the submission, which had been sent both electronically and by ordinary mail to the official NCP address. It was therefore re-sent.
Outcome According to the NCP’s report to the Annual Meeting of NCPs in June 2006, the Malaysian High Court ruled against the union. The NCP therefore closed the case.

Organisations

Lead NCP South Korea NCP : Independent Expert Body 

Companies

Multinational Company KISWIRE LTD (Home country: South Korea)
Subsidiary Kiswire Sdn Bhd (Home country: Malaysia)

Complainants

Lead Complainant MTUC- Malaysia : 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

Implications

Need for NCPs to acknowledge receipt