Suez Environnement V Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) and Food and Water Watch

Overview

NCP Decision Decision Pending
Current Status Withdrawn
Date Submitted 08/06/2011
Date Closed 29/02/2012
Case Duration 38 weeks and 0 days
Host Country US  (OECD member)
Issue(s) With-holding information required for bargaining and manipulating water quality monitoring results
Provisions Cited I.2  V.1-b  V.2-b  V.8  VI.1-a  VI.2  VI.2   
Outcome On 29 February 2012, the UWUA withdrew its complaint following the ratification of a new labour agreement with United Water and the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding NLRB complaints. The NGO complaint submitted by Food & Water Watch was still pending.

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 Suez Environnement (Home country: France)
Subsidiary United Water (Home country: US)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Food and Water Watch
Lead Complainant UWUA - Utility Workers Union of America : National Sectoral Union 

Related Documents

Utility Workers Union of America  [Publication date: 8/6/2011] 'UWUA and Food & Water Watch File International Treaty Complaint against United Water and Suez Environnement'
   http://uwua.net/press-releases-2011/utility-workers-union-of-america-and-food-a
   -water-watch-file-international-treaty-complaint-against-united-water-and-suez-e
   nvironnement.html
[Date URL accessed: 22/8/2011]

'Utility Workers Union of America et Food & Water Watch déposent une plainte en vertu d’un traité international contre United Water et Suez Environnement' [Date URL accessed: 22/8/2011]

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

This was the first trade union cases submitted under the new Guidelines adopted 25 May 2011.