Why does Clarebout want to close Mouscron 1, and what happens to its 392 workers?

Clarebout Potatoes informed workers on 8 September 2026 of a proposed end to production at its Mouscron 1 factory, potentially affecting 392 employees, according to its [announcement](https://www.clarebout.fr/fr/nouvelles-3/clarebout-potatoes-annonce-son-intention-de-mettre-fin-aux-activites-de-production-du-site-mouscron-1). The company has opened an information and consultation procedure; it has not announced a final closure decision. For staff and their families, the immediate practical distinction matters: this starts a process in which representatives can question the proposal, rather than constituting individual notice of dismissal.

The factory belongs to Mydibel SA, a Clarebout subsidiary. In its initial reporting, [Notélé](https://www.notele.be/si103-media167473-clarebout-potatoes-annonce-vouloir-arreter-ses-activites-de-production-sur-son-site-de-mouscron-jusqu-a-392-emplois-concernes.html) confirmed the proposed gradual cessation of production. The announcement concerns a particular production site, so readers should be careful with headlines suggesting that Clarebout itself is shutting down. Neither the final employment outcome nor a date for stopping production has been established in the material reviewed.

Management’s explanation centres on the economics of making frozen potato products. According to [RetailDetail’s French-language report](https://www.retaildetail.be/fr/news/food/clarebout-souhaite-fermer-son-usine-de-transformation-de-pommes-de-terre-a-mouscron/), Clarebout says its production capacity exceeds anticipated demand by approximately 14–20%. That is the company’s assessment, not an independently verified measure of the entire European market. In practical terms, management says it is carrying the expense of facilities designed to make more product than it expects to sell.

Why this factory? [Le Sillon Belge](https://www.sillonbelge.be/17373/article/2026-09-08/un-site-de-clarebout-potatoes-menace-de-fermeture) reports that Clarebout identifies Mouscron 1 as its smallest production site, with older equipment and higher costs per tonne than its other plants. The same report says the group intends to continue investing elsewhere in its network. The argument is therefore about where production should take place within the business. Whether investment or a different allocation of work could offer a viable alternative at Mouscron is a question for consultation, not a conclusion established by the announcement.

Workers’ representatives put the emphasis elsewhere. In a joint response reported by [Notélé](https://www.notele.be/si103-media167475-annonce-de-restructuration-chez-clarebout-a-mouscron-les-syndicats-denoncent-un-choc.html), the CSC and FGTB described the announcement as a shock for employees and the regional economy. They identified 338 manual workers and 54 other employees in the proposal concerning the rue Piro-Lannoy site. Both unions said they would defend jobs and support staff through the process. Their response makes clear why the issue reaches beyond a factory’s operating costs: uncertainty about work becomes uncertainty about household income and future plans.

The ownership history adds an important question. When the Simplot transaction was announced in July 2025, [The Brussels Times](https://www.brusselstimes.com/1661332/american-food-company-buys-up-belgian-frozen-fries-specialist) reported assurances that European personnel and facilities would be retained and expanded. Clarebout’s subsequent [completion announcement](https://www.clarebout.fr/fr/nouvelles-3/simplot-finalise-lacquisition-du-groupe-clarebout) presented the acquisition as strengthening the American group’s international production network. Those statements provide a reasonable basis for asking management what has changed. They do not, by themselves, establish that the takeover caused this proposal or that a legally binding employment guarantee existed.

There is a wider industrial lesson here. A group can describe its overall prospects in terms of growth while proposing to withdraw production from an individual location. The contrast between the acquisition announcement and the Mouscron proposal illustrates how corporate scale and local employment security can diverge. For the commune of Mouscron, the relevant test is what work can be preserved locally, and on what terms. For the company, the stated test is competitiveness across its network. Consultation brings those different priorities into the same discussion.

For anyone unfamiliar with Belgian employment terminology, the official starting point is the [SPF Emploi, Travail et Concertation sociale](https://emploi.belgique.be/fr/themes/restructuration/licenciement-collectif/procedures-dinformation-et-de-consultation). Its French-language guidance explains that employers must supply information and consult representatives about avoiding or reducing collective redundancies and mitigating their consequences. Employers must examine and answer proposals. However, the ministry explicitly says the rules do not require an agreement on the redundancies or a social plan. Consultation creates obligations; it does not guarantee that a factory will remain open.

A useful immediate step for an employee is to ask their representative which job categories are covered and what alternatives are being examined. Keep written communications and request an explanation of unfamiliar terms before making decisions. In French documents, licenciement collectif means collective redundancy; cellule de reconversion refers to a service supporting a return to employment. These distinctions are particularly useful for English-speaking residents navigating workplace discussions conducted in French.

If redundancies proceed, [Le Forem](https://www.leforem.be/a-propos/reconversions-collectives.html) describes a collective reconversion service established at the request of representative trade unions, combining employment advisers, social support and help with training or job searches. The sources reviewed do not confirm a dedicated Mouscron 1 service yet. The next meaningful developments will be management’s answers to alternatives, any revised employment figures and a decision following consultation. Until those emerge, closure timing, possible transfers and departure arrangements remain unresolved.