Roquette Frères V International Union of Food Workers, AFL-CIO and ICEM

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 06/01/2011
Date Closed 23/07/2011
Case Duration 28 weeks and 2 days
Host Country US  (OECD member)
Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Lock out of employees in violation of the right to good faith collective bargaining; and violation of the right to freedom of association.
Provisions Cited III.1  III.4-f  IV.1-a  IV.3   
Outcome On 23 July 2011, a settlement was ratified by the union at the Roquette Keokuk facility, putting an end to the dispute and with it the lockout. The complaint was withdrawn.

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 
Supporting NCP France NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 

Companies

Multinational Company Roquette Frères (Home country: France)
Subsidiary Roquette America (Home country: US)
Production Facility Roquette America Keokuk (Home country: US)

Complainants

Lead Complainant ICEM International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions : Global Union Federation 
Lead Complainant AFL-CIO : National Centre 
Lead Complainant International Union of Food Workers (IUF) : Global Union Federation 

Related Documents

French NCP  [Publication date: 26/6/2012] 'Roquette Frères: Communiqué du Point de contact national français chargé du suivi des principes directeurs de l’OCDE à l’intention des entreprises multinationales'
   http://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/File/372063 [Date URL accessed: 6/7/2012]

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