Indian association of 263 former workers vs. Anonymous Indian affiliate of German company

Allegations

On 21 September 2022, an Indian association of 263 former workers filed a complaint against an Indian company affiliated to a German company at the German NCP. The association alleges that the Indian company failed to fulfil its obligations under the Human Rights and Employment and Industrial Relations chapters of the OECD Guidelines by failing to employ in accordance with national law, specifically not paying the basic minimum salary and withholding bonus payments to its workers, and by illegally retrenching them. They also allege that the company unlawfully colluded with relevant Indian government departments by fabricating settlement agreements between the company and former workers. The association also claims human rights violations on the basis that they have been deprived of the possibility to feed themselves and their families, and to educate their children due to the illegal retrenchment. They seek monetary restitution and reemployment.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

• Chapter II
• Chapter IV
• Chapter V
• Chapter V Paragraph 1 b
• Chapter V Paragraph 1 e
• Chapter V Paragraph 3
• Chapter V Paragraph 4 a
• Chapter V Paragraph 4 b
• Chapter V Paragraph 6

Outcome

On 23 July 2024, the German NCP published its initial assessment rejecting the complaint on the basis of several pending parallel proceedings in India. The NCP stated that parallel proceedings did not per se provide grounds for dismissal of a complaint by the NCP, but that the NCP’s support should add value over and above the other proceedings. It referred to its limited fact-finding ability and inability to issue determinations on an issue that happened in the past, rather its purpose being to support the parties through a forward-looking mediation procedure to help them better implement the Guidelines in the future. Given the main objective of the NCP complaint was restitution and reemployment of the former employees, the NCP considered that acceptance of the complaint would “affect a prejudgment and interfere with the competence of the national courts of India already seized of the matter. In contrast to the German NCP, the national courts have the necessary investigative powers to examine the accused actions of the Respondent in addition to being close to scene.”

More details

Documents

• Reject

  23 July 2024

  Initial assessment

  NCP Germany