Groupe Lactalis V the United Farm workers Union (UFW)

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 24/05/2005
Case Duration Not known
Host Country US  (OECD member)
Issue(s) Right to trade union representation, health and safety, sexual discrimination in hiring practices and harassment
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.1-d  IV.2-a  IV.4-a  IV.4-b  IV.5   
Case Description In May 2005, the United Farmworkers Union (UFW) submitted a complaint to the US NCP concerning Threemile Canyon Farms, a supplier to Sorrento Lactalis, the US subsidiary of the French company Groupe Lactalis.

Threemile has not respected the workers’ right to be represented by trade unions and has harassed workers who have supported the union. The company has furthermore failed to provide protective equipment for workers dealing with dangerous chemicals. In addition, Threemile has been accused of sexual discrimination in its hiring practices. Health and safety violations - failure to may minimum wage and other wage regulations, sexual discrimination and refusal to recognise workers rights to collectively bargain.

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Groupe Lactalis (Home country: France)
Subsidiary Sorrento Lactalis (Home country: US)
Supplier Threemile Canyon Farms (Home country: US)

Complainants

Lead Complainant UFW United Farm Workers : National Sectoral 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

Implications

The allegations concerned a supplier of a subsidiary