Cargill V International Union of Food Workers (IUF)

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 29/04/2010
Date Closed 05/05/2011
Case Duration 53 weeks and 0 days
Host Country Papua New Guinea  (Non-adhering country)
Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Refusal to negotiate with the trade union
Provisions Cited I.1  I.2  I.7  IV.1-a  IV.2-b  IV.2-c  IV.6   
Case Description In April 2010, the IUF submitted a complaint to the US NCP concerning a subsidiary of the US company Cargill, CTP Holdings, which produces palm oil in Papua New Guinea. The case concerned the refusal of CTP Holdings to negotiate with the trade union the Higaturu Oil Palm Processing Workers' Union (HOPPWU) over a range of issues since 2007 including: non-payment of overtime pay; failure to implement check off of union dues; refusal to negotiate wages; refusal to provide information and negotiate on continuity of entitlements.
Developments On 11 April 2010, the US NCP wrote to the IUF stating that it would begin an initial assessment of the complaint.
Outcome The US NCP rejected the case.

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Cargill (Home country: US)
Subsidiary CTP Holdings (Home country: Papua New Guinea)

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Union of Food Workers (IUF) : Global Union Federation 
Affected Party HOPPWU Higaturu Oil Palm Processing Workers' Union : Local Union 

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment? status-icon
Did the case involve parallel proceedings? status-icon
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary? status-icon
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case? status-icon
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation held? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator? status-icon
Did the parties reach agreement? status-icon
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties? status-icon
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding? status-icon
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case? status-icon
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance? status-icon
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case? status-icon
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved? status-icon
Did the lead NCP play a positive role? status-icon
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role? status-icon