Life Uniform V UNITE-HERE and CATY

Overview

NCP Decision No Decision
Current Status No Information
Date Submitted 12/07/2004
Case Duration 752 weeks and 6 days so far
Host Country Mexico  (OECD member)
Sector Textiles, Leather and Garments 
Issue(s) Safety standards, minimum wage
Provisions Cited II.1  II.2  II.3  II.4  II.6  II.7  IV.1-a  IV.1-c  IV.4-b   
Related Cases Angelica Textile Services V UNITE-HERE
Related Cases
ABN Amro Bank V UNITE-HERE

Case Description The working conditions at two factories in Mexico were raised with the US NCP by the US trade union UNITE-HERE and the Mexican organisation CATY in July 2004. The two factories are suppliers of Life Uniform, a health care uniform retailer. At the time of the case being raised, Life Uniform was a division of Angelica Corporation. In August, however, Life Uniform was sold to Healthcare Uniform Co, an enterprise of Sun Capital Partners.

Life Uniform has failed to ensure that its suppliers apply principles of corporate conduct compatible with the Guidelines. Minimum employment standards and health and safety conditions have been violated at the two plants in Mexico (MarkeyTex and CocoTex) resulting in occupational injury and illness. Workers are denied minimum wages as regulated in Mexican labour law, they are expected to work overtime without compensation and they are not provided with protective equipment such as respiratory masks and suffer from respiratory infections.

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Companies

Multinational Company Life Uniform (Home country: US)
Supplier MarkeyTex (Home country: Mexico)
Supplier CocoTex (Home country: Mexico)

Complainants

Lead Complainant CATY : Trade Union Other 
Lead Complainant UNITE-HERE : Regional/state 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

Transfer of Company to New Ownership