Diam International SAS V Birleşik Metal İşçileri Sendikası (United Metalworkers' Union)

Overview

NCP Decision Decision Pending
Date Submitted 03/08/2017
Case Duration 102 weeks and 0 days so far
Host Country Turkey  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Dismissal of trade union members; refusal to recognise the union for collective bargaining
Provisions Cited  
Case Description In August 2017, Birleşik Metal İşçileri Sendikası (United Metalworkers' Union) filed a complaint at the French NCP against Diam International SAS for anti-union behaviour at its fully-owned subsidiary Diam Vitrin Tasarım Hizmetleri Ambalaj San. Tic. Ltd. Şti's plant in Turkey. Birleşik Metal İş union started to have trade union members in Diam Vitrin Tasarım Ambalaj San Tic Ltd Şti on 11th of May 2017. Once the company learnt about the union memberships, it started to dismiss members. On 12th of May 2017, five workers were dismissed because of union membership.

Organisations

Lead NCP France NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 
Supporting NCP Turkey NCP : Single Government Department 

Complainants

Lead Complainant Birlesik Metal IS : National Sectoral 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?