Cases Related With OECD Between Multinational Companies in Indonesia According To Trade

Union Advisory Committee to The OECD (TUAC)

1. Nestl SA V International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel,

Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations
(Indonesia) (2008)
a. Case Description
In November 2008, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel,
Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations (IUF) raised
a case against Nestl Indonesia with the Swiss National Contact Points
(NCP) regarding the right to bargain wages as a fundamental element of
collective bargaining.
b. Issues and Provisions
1) Refusal to negotiate wages in violation of ILO Conventions 87 and 98,
attacks on bona fide trade union workers, and yellow union.
2) Contrary to provisions of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
2000, as follows:
- Chapter IV. 1-a
Respect the right of their employees to be represented by trade
unions and other bona fide representatives of employees, and
engage in constructive negotiations, either individually or through
employers associations, with such representatives with a view to
reaching agreements on employment conditions.
- Chapter IV.2-b
Provide information to employee representatives which is needed
for meaningful negotiations on conditions of employment.
- Chapter IV. 2-c
Promote consultation and co-operation between employers and
employees and their representatives on matters of mutual concern.
c. Development and Result
1) The Swiss NCP accepted the complaint on the 5th January 2009. The
Swiss NCP has offered its good offices for the purposes of solving the
issue. The NCP convened joint and separate meetings with the parties
on the 28th and 29th August 2010 respectively. A meeting with the IUF
on the 16th August involved representative of workers from Indonesia.
2) The NCP closed the specific instance on the grounds that agreement
was reached between the unions and the company that the Union of
Nestl Indonesia Panjang Workers would be recognised for the
purposes of collective bargaining. As other issues raised in the specific
instance had not been addressed, the IUF did not agree that the case
should have been closed.

2. HeidelbergCement Group V Confederation of Indonesian Trade

Unions and IndustriALL (2013)
a. Case Description
In May 2013, the Federation of Indonesian Cement Industy, the
Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions and IndustriALL Global Union
submitted a case to the German NCP concerning labour violations by
HeidelbergCementGroup. The complaint describes anti-union activities
including violence and other reprisals against trade unionists in breach of
Chapter V (Employment and Industrial Relations) and Chapter IV (Human
Rights) of the OECD Guidelines 2011. The complainants have requested
the German NCP to offer its good offices to facilitate dialogue between the
employers and the union and to find a solution that respects the rights of
workers at the plant, Indocement Tunggal Prakarsa.
b. Issues and Provisions
1) Freedom of association, reprisals against trade unions, and violence
against trade unions.
2) Contrary to provisions of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
2011, as follows:
- Chapter V. 1-a
Respect the right of workers employed by the multinational
enterprise to establish or join trade unions and representative
organisations of their own choosing.
- Chapter V. 1-b
Respect the right of workers employed by the multinational
enterprise to have trade unions and representative organisations of
their own choosing recognised for the purpose of collective
bargaining, and engage in constructive negotiations, either
individually or through employers' associations, with such
representatives with a view to reaching agreements on terms and
conditions of employment.
- Chapter V. 2-a
Provide such facilities to workers representatives as may be
necessary to assist in the development of effective collective
agreements.
- Chapter V. 7
In the context of bona fide negotiations with workers
representatives on conditions of employment, or while workers are
exercising a right to organise, not threaten to transfer the whole or
part of an operating unit from the country concerned nor transfer
workers from the enterprises' component entities in other countries
in order to influence unfairly those negotiations or to hinder the
exercise of a right to organise.
c. Development and Result
1) The case was partially accepted by the German NCP and
HeidelbergCementGroup agreed to participate in mediation offered by
the German NCP.

2) Following mediation provided by the German NCP the parties reached

the following agreement:
a) In relation to the point on relocation of the premises the union can
accept the new relocated premises. It is a common understanding
that union and union members are not hampered in their activities.
Whatever warning letters have been issued in this context have
expired and are not valid any more.
b) Both sides underline, that safety and security of the workforce
within company's premises - including union members- has to be
guaranteed. Both sides underline that a good relationship with the
local community is crucial for company and unions. Indocement and
HeidelbergCement already have a good working CSR program in
place. Both sides agree to put CSR projects on the agenda of the
regular meetings of the union and the management. This would
show the involvement of the union in the programs. That could
demonstrate to the local communities that management and union
share the same interest in regards to CSR policies.
c) Both sides agree that union leaders, which means the negotiation
team, perform specific functions. This has to be taken into account
also in cases of intra-company transfers. A transfer or threat of
transfer without consent of the union leader can only be considered
as an exception. It is in this view, that the company management
will reconsider the individual cases in this complaint.
d) Both parties underline the right of union chairpersons to visit
workplaces even if not part of the workforce, and on the other hand
respect the rights to act in accordance with local legislation and the
collective agreement. The parties agree that by means of the
mediation process at the NCP the alleged complaints have been
clarified and resolved by further bilateral dialogue.
3. Deutsche Post DHL V UNI Global Union and the International
Transport Workers Federation (ITF) (2012)
a. Case Description
In November 2012, UNI Global Union and the International Transport
Workers Federation (ITF) submitted a case to the German NCP concerning
labour violations by Deutsche Post-DHL in a number of countries around
the world. Host countries for this case were Colombia (Adhering Country),
Guatemala
(Non-adhering country) , Indonesia
(OECD Enhanced
Engagement), Malawi (Non-adhering country), Norway (OECD member),
Panama
(Non-adhering country), South Africa
(OECD Enhanced
Engagement), Turkey (OECD member), and Vietnam (Non-adhering
country). The complaint describes anti-union activities including reprisals
against trade unionists in breach of Chapter V (Employment and Industrial
Relations) and Chapter IV (Human Rights) of the OECD Guidelines. The
complaint also focuses on the responsibility of Deutsche Post-DHL to

conduct effective human rights due diligence. The trade unions have
requested that the German NCP offer its good offices for mediation with a
view to problem-solving and finding mechanisms to improve the
effectiveness of human rights due diligence.
b. Issues and Provisions
1) Anti-union campaigns, reprisals against trade unions, infringements of
the right to join a trade union and to engage in collective bargaining,
and abusive use of contract labour.
2) Contrary to provisions of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
2011, as follows:
- Chapter IV. 1
Respect human rights, which means they should avoid infringing on
the human rights of others and should address adverse human
rights impacts with which they are involved.
- Chapter IV. 2
Within the context of their own activities, avoid causing or
contributing to adverse human rights impacts and address such
impacts when they occur.
- Chapter IV. 3
Seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts
that are directly linked to their business operations, products or
services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute
to those impacts.
- Chapter IV. 4
Have a policy commitment to respect human rights.
- Chapter IV. 5
Carry out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size,
the nature and context of operations and the severity of the risks of
adverse human rights impacts.
- Chapter V. 1-a
Respect the right of workers employed by the multinational
enterprise to establish or join trade unions and representative
organisations of their own choosing.
- Chapter V. 1-b
Respect the right of workers employed by the multinational
enterprise to have trade unions and representative organisations of
their own choosing recognised for the purpose of collective
bargaining, and engage in constructive negotiations, either
individually or through employers' associations, with such
representatives with a view to reaching agreements on terms and
conditions of employment.
- Chapter V. 2-a
Provide such facilities to workers representatives as may be
necessary to assist in the development of effective collective
agreements.
- Chapter V. 3

Promote consultation and co-operation between employers and

workers and their representatives on matters of mutual concern.
- Chapter V. 7
In the context of bona fide negotiations with workers
representatives on conditions of employment, or while workers are
exercising a right to organise, not threaten to transfer the whole or
part of an operating unit from the country concerned nor transfer
workers from the enterprises' component entities in other countries
in order to influence unfairly those negotiations or to hinder the
exercise of a right to organise.
c. Development and Result
1) The German NCP partially accepted the case and offered the parties
mediation. Deutsche Post-DHL agreed to participate in mediation.
2) Following mediation the parties reached an agreement. The German
NCP published a Joint Statement.

4. Bridgestone V Local Union of Chemical, Energy and Mines (2004)

a. Case Description
On the 6th September 2004, the Local Union of Chemical, Energy and
Mines of Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia submitted a case to the NCP of Japan
concerning violations of trade union rights by Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia
Company, a subsidiary of Bridgestone Corporation. The union called on
the company to reinstate four trade union officials that had been
dismissed for union activities. The case has previously been raised with
the ILO Committee of Freedom of Association.
b. Issues and Provisions
1) Dismissal of trade union officials for union activities.
2) Contrary to provisions of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
2000, as follows:
- Chapter IV. 1-a
Respect the right of their employees to be represented by trade
unions and other bona fide representatives of employees, and
engage in constructive negotiations, either individually or through
employers associations, with such representatives with a view to
reaching agreements on employment conditions.
- Chapter IV. 2-a
Provide facilities to employee representatives as may be necessary
to assist in the development of effective collective agreements.
- Chapter IV. 2-c
Promote consultation and co-operation between employers and
employees and their representatives on matters of mutual concern.
- Chapter IV. 3
Provide information to employees and their representatives which
enables them to obtain a true and fair view of the performance of
the entity or, where appropriate, the enterprise as a whole.

Chapter IV. 4-a

Observe standards of employment and industrial relations not less
favourable than those observed by comparable employers in the
host country.
- Chapter IV. 7
In the context of bona fide negotiations with representatives of
employees on conditions of employment, or while employees are
exercising a right to organise, not threaten to transfer the whole or
part of an operating unit from the country concerned nor transfer
employees from the enterprises component entities in other
countries in order to influence unfairly those negotiations or to
hinder the exercise of a right to organise.
- Chapter IV. 8
Enable authorised representatives of their employees to negotiate
on collective bargaining or labour-management relations issues and
allow the parties to consult on matters of mutual concern with
representatives of management who are authorised to take
decisions on these matters.
c. Development and Result
In April 2005, Trade Union Advisory Committee to The OECD (TUAC) was
informed that the submission had not been received by the NCP and it
was therefore resent. The NCP acknowledged receipt of the case at the
end of May 2005.

5. Honda V International Metalworkers Federation (IMF) (2003)

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.
b. Issues and Provisions
Contrary to the provision Chapter IV. 1-a of OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises 2000 which stated that, Respect the right of
their employees to be represented by trade unions and other bona fide
representatives of employees, and engage in constructive negotiations,
either individually or through employers associations, with such
representatives with a view to reaching agreements on employment
conditions.
c. Development and Result

1) The NCP met separately with Honda and the trade union organisations
RENGO and IMF-JC to discuss the case.
2) 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.