Nissan V United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and IndustriALL

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 28/04/2014
Date Closed 30/01/2015
Case Duration 39 weeks and 4 days
Host Country US  (OECD member)
Sector Automotive 
Issue(s) Interference with the right to organise, anti-union campaigns
Provisions Cited IV.1  V.1-a  V.1-b  V.2-a  V.3  V.7   
Case Description In April 2014, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and IndustriALL submitted a joint case to the US NCP against Nissan for violations of the Guidelines at its manufacturing facility in Canton, Mississippi in the US.

The violations, which took place from 2003 to 2014 include aggressive anti-union tactics of management and failure to respect international standards on freedom of association.

Nissan’s corporate headquarters are located in Yokahama, Japan. Nissan North America, Inc. is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. In addition, Nissan has been integrated into a strategic alliance with France-based Renault since 1999.

Developments On 13 November 2014, the U.S. NCP accepted the case and offered its good offices in order to assist the parties to undertake a dialogue to seek a mutually agreeable resolution. However, Nissan refused to participate in mediation.
Outcome The US NCP therefore drew up a Final Statement and closed the case. It made the following recommendations:

"Conduct Corporate-Wide Labor Review: The U.S. NCP recommends that Nissan North America, Inc., in cooperation and with guidance from Nissan corporate headquarters in Japan, conduct corporate-wide labor rights review processes, consistent with the recommendation of the Guidelines, in particular the chapters cited above."

Mediation: The U.S. NCP recommends that Nissan evaluate the allegations raised by the submitters and consider how to address them, including the opportunity to engage informally or formally with the submitters. The U.S. NCP recommends Nissan consider mediating, either through its own internal processes or through third-party mechanisms, the issues raised by UAW/IndustriALL to seek a resolution to the issues raised.

Going Forward: The U.S. NCP notes that this Specific Instance has been shared with other foreign NCPs who have been consulted throughout this process and that these NCPs remain available to offer assistance to the parties. The U.S. NCP remains available to assist the parties in facilitating dialogue in the future on these matters, if the parties later agree to pursue mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution."

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 
Supporting NCP France NCP : Tripartite (involving several government departments and the social partners) 
Supporting NCP Netherlands NCP : Independent Expert Body 
Supporting NCP Japan NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company Nissan (Home country: Japan)
Subsidiary Nissan North America (Home country: US)

Complainants

Lead Complainant UAW United Auto Workers : National Union 
Lead Complainant IndustriALL : Global Union Federation 

Related Documents

US NCP  [Publication date: 30/1/2015] 'U.S. NCP Final Statement UAW-IndustriALL and Nissan North America, Inc. for operations in the United States'
   https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/237185.pdf [Date URL accessed: 10/6/2015]

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