Cargill V Unión Obrera Molinera Argentina (Argentine Millers’ Labour Union - UOMA)

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 29/11/2006
Date Closed 31/07/2007
Case Duration 34 weeks and 6 days
Host Country Argentina  (Adhering Country)
Sector Food, Agriculture and Tobacco 
Issue(s) Anti-union practices
Provisions Cited II  IV.1-a  IV.1-b   
Case Description The Argentine Millers’ Labour Union (UOMA) submitted a case to the Argentine NCP in November 2006, concerning breaches of the Guidelines by Cargill, one of the world’s largest agricultural company's, relating to anti-union practices.
Developments On the 9th May 2007, the NCP convened a meeting of the parties to review the state of events. The meeting was held at the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Representativesof UOMA and Cargill agreed to work together to find a solution.
Outcome After having accepted the case, the NCP conducted negotiations between the two parties and an agreement was reached. On 22nd June 2007, the parties agreed a Memorandum of Understanding setting out their agreement on issues raised in the submission. The NCP issued a Final Statement on the 31st July 2007.

Organisations

Lead NCP Argentina NCP : Single Government Department 

Companies

Multinational Company Cargill (Home country: US)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Argentine Millers' Labour Union : National Sectoral Union 

Related Documents

OECD  [Publication date: 31/7/2007] 'Argentine National Contact Point's Final Statement on the Specific Instance Between Union Oberara Molinera Argentina and Cargill S.A.'
   http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/25/39201998.pdf [Date URL accessed: 4/8/2009]

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