UNI Global Union | 8-10 Avenue Reverdil | 1260 Nyon | Switzerland 

Tel: +41 22 365 2100 | Fax: +41 22 365 2121 | www.uniglobalunion.org 1/2 

Philip J. Jennings 

General Secretary 

Tel: +41 22 365 21 26 

gs@uniglobalunion.org 

U.S. OECD National Contact Point Review 

U.S. Department of State 

Email: input@state.gov 

Nyon, 05 November 2010

Re: UNI Global Union Comments on the U.S. OECD National Contact Point 

Dear U.S. OECD National Contact Point Review Staff: 

I write on behalf of UNI Global Union, the global federation representing 900 unions in the services 

sectors with 20 million members worldwide. UNI is a credible and important voice for working people 

in our global economy and has global relationships with many of the world’s leading multinational 

employers. We commend the fact that, under your leadership, the U.S. government has undertaken 

to review the practices and procedures of the U. S. National Contact Point (NCP) responsible for the 

OCED Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines provide a framework 

of international norms to govern the conduct of multinationals with respect to employment and other 

issues. While they fall short of legally binding rules, all governments are obligated through 

membership in the OECD to enforce and implement them. 

UNI and its affiliates confront the problems of globalisation every day – an absence of the “rule of 

law” with respect to conditions of employment and the right to freedom of association in too many 

countries and relentless pressure on even well meaning employers to engage in a “race to the 

bottom” in order to remain competitive. In his recent work as the Special Rapporteur for the United 

Nations on Business and Human Rights, Professor John Ruggie repeatedly points to the Guidelines 

as the tool to address some of these challenges and to hold business accountable. They are one 

potential avenue through which stakeholders can seek an effective grievance procedure and 

remedy, key elements of his highly regarded recommendations to the United Nations Committee on 

Human Rights. 

However, any role for the Guidelines depends upon the effectiveness of the National Contact Point 

in the member countries. At UNI, we have not had a positive experience with the U.S. NCP over 

recent years. In fact, its reputation is such that our affiliates are generally unwilling to see the 

Guidelines as an effective means to resolve disputes involving U.S. based multinationals, and, as a 

result, it is a seldom used mechanism. 

In contrast, we have had success in using the Guidelines as an effective mechanism in other OECD 

countries. In 2008, UNI resolved a case involving a UK corporation (G4S) and allegations of wrong 

doing in 14 countries. The UK government had established a system with 1) independent oversight, 

2) timelines for published decisions, including a final statement and 3) access to a mediator. This 

system did not require the substantial resources commensurate with a judicial process, but operated 

to bring parties together, often the first step in a dispute resolution process. Once the UK NCP 
2/2 

accepted the UNI case as a “Specific Instance” under the Guidelines, and offered the services of a 

mediator, UNI and G4S had an incentive to come to a workable solution. The settlement in that case 

has brought meaningful improvements in the lives of many G4S employees in Africa and elsewhere. 

One of the comments often heard in the course of this debate is that United States employers would 

not voluntarily participate in this process. In response, UNI would offer that, in our experience, 

employers will participate in a transparent process, with timelines and decisions, because there 

would be a clear incentive to participate and avoid the reputational harm associated with refusal. 

The United States NCP should also develop additional measures in the event of refusal to 

participate or flouting of the Guidelines. Under the current posture in the US, there are no 

consequences for ignoring the offer of the “good offices” of the NCP, reputational or otherwise. 

With regard to the specific reforms under review, UNI endorses the position submitted by TUAC and 

the AFL-CIO, as well as the statements submitted by four UNI affiliates, SEIU, UFCW, CWA and 

IBT. We suggest that the United States should build upon the reforms adopted by the UK 

government and move towards an even more ambitious approach in this area. 

The OECD Guidelines have emerged as one of the few means of redress in an era when many 

states are too weak or unwilling to oversee or enforce the rights of communities and workers with 

respect to multinational enterprises. We urge your government to use this opportunity to set a 

positive example for other OECD member countries and take meaningful steps to enhance and 

strengthen the US NCP. 

Respectfully, 

Philip Jennings 

General Secretary