Häagen-Dazs (General Mills) V Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU)

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 15/10/2009
Date Closed 15/11/2009
Case Duration 4 weeks and 3 days
Host Country South Korea  (OECD member)
Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Not known
Provisions Cited II.2  II.10  III.4-a  III.4-f  IV.1-a  IV.7  IV.8   
Case Description On the 15 October 2009 the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) submitted a complaint to the US NCP concering the activities of the US based company Häagen-Dazs.
Outcome The issue was quickly resolved once the company became aware of the situation and communicated with the union. There was no decision or intervention by the US NCP.

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Häagen-Dazs (Home country: US)
Franchisee Häagen-Dazs Korea (Home country: South Korea)

Complainants

Lead Complainant KCTU- Korea : National Centre 

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

Implications

The case was withdrawn by the trade unions within a very short timescale.