Trico Marine Services

Overview

NCP Decision Rejected
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 02/02/2001
Date Closed 12/12/2002
Case Duration 96 weeks and 6 days
Host Country US  (OECD member)
Sector Transport 
Issue(s) Denying employees right to representation by the Federation of Maritime Unions; harassment and intimidation
Provisions Cited IV.1-a  IV.4-a  IV.7   
Case Description In February 2001, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) together with five American unions submitted a case to the US NCP concerning an anti-union campaign conducted by Trico including harassment and intimidation of workers.
Developments In response to Trico’s anti-union campaign, the Norwegian oil and petrochemical workers’ union, NOPEF, started a boycott of Trico. NOPEF also persuaded the oil company Norsk Hydro to halt negotiations with Trico on the chartering of vessels. Furthermore, legal action was taken in Norway, which made reference to the Guidelines.

I

Outcome In November 2002, NOPEF and Trico Norway signed a consent decree, allowing the employees at Trico USA to organise. Trico also agreed to send a letter to all the employees ensuring that the company accepted the right to organise and that there would not be any discrimination or harassment of pro-union workers.

One month later in December 2002, the NCP rejected the case on the grounds of parallel legal proceedings. It stated that it would not take up the case due to the role of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) referring to the mandate of the NLRB 'to consider the matter on the basis of U.S. labor law' as well as the agreement between NOPEF and Trico.

Organisations

Lead NCP US NCP : Single Department with Interagency Working Group 

Complainants

Lead Complainant International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant Seafarers International Union : National Sectoral Union 
Lead Complainant International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) : Global Union Federation 
Supporting Complainant AFL-CIO : National Centre 

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

TUAC Assessment

The US NCP did not play an active role in resolving this case. Nevertheless, the Guidelines served as a source of pressure on the company to stop its anti-union campaign and recognise the rights of the workers to be represented by trade unions.

Implications

Parallel legal proceedings