BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

agreement was the introduction of a process for monitoring labour conditions through joint labour inspections. 64 Based on the arrangement, the Swiss NCP welcomed the results which included “the resolution of the issues raised by the submitting party” and “the institutionalisation of the dialogue regarding human rights between FIFA and stakeholders” 65 among others. 4.2 Former Employees of Bralima vs. Bralima and Heineken As an example of how decisions of NCPs can intervene in post-conflict areas serves the Bralima/Heineken case. 66 The dispute was initiated in 2015 by a notification submitted by the representatives of a group of former employees dismissed by Bralima during the period between 1999–2003, to the Dutch NCP. This specific instance involved allegations of 168 former employees of the Congolese company Bralima, which is a subsidiary of Heineken N.V., a multinational enterprise based in the Netherlands. Since 1987 Heineken has indirectly held around 95% of Bralima’s shares. 67 The complaint stated that Bralima violated its own workers’ human rights, particularly in the form of serious errors in mass dismissals, irregularities, and deliberate omissions in the individual redundancy schemes for the dismissed workers. Some employees were forced into early retirement in 2000. Others were not paid adequate compensation and were deprived of social welfare. In addition, the procedure of dismissal was contrary to Congolese labour law. Bralima was accused of cooperation with the rebel movement RDC-Goma which was active in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 2000 to 2003. The agreements resulted in mass dismissals that were not authorised by the competent authority, as required by law, but by RCD-Goma. This collaboration between Bralima and RCD-Goma is believed to have caused grave consequences for Bralima’s workers and their families. 68 Initially, Bralima and Heineken rejected all of these claims and highlighted “the complexity involved with operating in volatile and conflict-affected areas”. 69 Nevertheless, the Dutch NCP concluded, after the initial assessment, that the complaint merited further consideration. Both parties agreed to have a constructive dialogue offered by the Dutch NCP, provided by an experienced mediator. The mediator helped to bridge the gap, and the parties resolved the issue and settled the dispute. 70 Unfortunately, in this specific instance, the parties wished to keep the outcome confidential. Heineken publicly indicated that it would draw up a policy, including guidelines, on how to conduct business and operate in volatile and conflict-affected countries. Heineken moreover committed itself to analyse its existing policies and processes in the light of the OECD Guidelines and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human 64 Ibid, p. 3-4. 65 Ibid, p. 6. 66 Final Statement by the Dutch National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Bralima and Heineken , 18 August, 2017 [hereinafter NCP Bralima/Heineken Decision ]. 67 Ibid, p. 2. 68 Ibid, p. 2-3.

69 Ibid, p. 3. 70 Ibid, p. 5.

61