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 (“Gui delines”). The Guidelines provide a framework of international norms to govern the conduct of mu ltinationals 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 glob alisation 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 reputa tion 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 NCP2/2 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 submitte d by four UNI affiliates, SEIU, UFCW, CWA and IBT. We suggest that the United States shou ld 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 enf orce 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