|Glencore/Perubar S.A. and Central Única de Trabajadores del Perú (CUT)|
|Description||Specific instance submitted by Central Única de Trabajadores del Perú (CUT) regarding the activities of Perubar S.A., a subsidiary of the Swiss multinational Glencore Mineral A.G., operating Peru.|
|Theme(s)||Competition, Concepts and principles, Disclosure, General policies, Human rights|
|Date||21 Apr 2009|
|Industry sector||Mining and quarrying|
Read the final statement issued by the Peruvian NCP (Spanish) - 16 May 2016
On 21 April 2009, the Peruvian NCP received a submission from the Central Única de Trabajadores del Perú (CUT) alleging that the rights of mining workers had not been observed during the closure process of a mine in Peru, managed by Perubar S.A., a subsidiary of the Swiss multinational Glencore Mineral A.G.
On 18 June 2009, the NCP released its initial assessment. Although a judicial process was already underway the NCP decided to offer its good offices to promote dialogue between the parties.
The NCP held several meetings with the parties involved and also proposed that both parties meet without the NCP in order to reach an out of court settlement. After these meetings, the company expressed its intention to address the issue in the conciliation phase of a regular judicial process.
In February 2014, the first instance court handling this matter issued a judgment. CUT considered this judgment unfavourable and appealed. The NCP reiterated its efforts to help the parties reach an out of court settlement and met with both parties but the company decided not to engage in further dialogue with the CUT as it was satisfied with the judgement rendered.
As a result, the NCP considered that it would not be possible to achieve an agreement amongst the parties and issued a final statement (Spanish) on 16 May 2016.
In its final statement, the NCP recognised that its offer of good offices alone could not make a positive contribution to the resolution of the issues raised due to ongoing parallel proceedings. The NCP also acknowledged that it could not make a legal judgment with regard to the alleged non-observance but concluded that CUT had not sufficiently demonstrated that Perubar had not observed the OECD Guidelines.