Wal-Mart Wins Ruling on Foreign Labor
December 19, 2006
Wal-Mart Wins Ruling on Foreign Labor
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Wal-Mart Stores cannot be held liable under United States law for labor conditions at some of its overseas suppliers, a federal judge has ruled.
A complaint filed last year in Los Angeles by the International Labor Rights Fund contended that employees of Wal-Mart suppliers in China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Swaziland and Nicaragua were forced to work overtime without pay and in some cases were fired because they tried to organize unions. The group sought to represent hundreds of thousands of employees of Wal-Mart’s overseas suppliers.
The foreign workers sued as third-party beneficiaries to Wal-Mart’s contracts with garment factories outside the United States. The complaint said that the contracts required suppliers in the five countries to comply with local labor standards and that what the plaintiffs deemed the company’s failure to enforce those terms meant the employees were working under “sweatshop” conditions.
Judge Andrew Guilford of United States District Court in Central California said in a preliminary ruling Dec. 12 that the facts presented by the labor rights group did not support the claim for breach of contract or negligence.
Lawyers for the workers will be allowed to file an amended complaint, according to the ruling.
“This is basically a local wage and hours violations case and should be handled in those countries,” said Beth Keck, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart. “It is very inappropriate that Wal-Mart should be made part of this.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Wal-Mart Wins Ruling on Foreign Labor
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Wal-Mart Stores cannot be held liable under United States law for labor conditions at some of its overseas suppliers, a federal judge has ruled.
A complaint filed last year in Los Angeles by the International Labor Rights Fund contended that employees of Wal-Mart suppliers in China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Swaziland and Nicaragua were forced to work overtime without pay and in some cases were fired because they tried to organize unions. The group sought to represent hundreds of thousands of employees of Wal-Mart’s overseas suppliers.
The foreign workers sued as third-party beneficiaries to Wal-Mart’s contracts with garment factories outside the United States. The complaint said that the contracts required suppliers in the five countries to comply with local labor standards and that what the plaintiffs deemed the company’s failure to enforce those terms meant the employees were working under “sweatshop” conditions.
Judge Andrew Guilford of United States District Court in Central California said in a preliminary ruling Dec. 12 that the facts presented by the labor rights group did not support the claim for breach of contract or negligence.
Lawyers for the workers will be allowed to file an amended complaint, according to the ruling.
“This is basically a local wage and hours violations case and should be handled in those countries,” said Beth Keck, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart. “It is very inappropriate that Wal-Mart should be made part of this.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
posted by Walking Contradiction at 4:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home