Bonum Certa Men Certa

Leaked Letter Reveals How Battistelli Still Exploits FFPE-EPO (Yellow Union) to Attack the Real EPO Union, SUEPO

EPO meme



Summary: A look at a letter sent prior to a previous meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO, highlighting the role played by FFPE-EPO in the crushing of SUEPO at the hands of Team Battistelli

It has been absolutely no secret that Battistelli uses a classic union-busting tactic ("good union, bad union") in an effort to crush the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO). We wrote about this many times before, including in the following articles:



  1. In the EPO's Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
  2. Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as 'Yellow Union' Against SUEPO
  3. “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
  4. Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli's Circle
  5. The EPO's Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
  6. Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
  7. Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
  8. FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
  9. Their Masters' Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
  10. Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE's Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
  11. On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives 'Gifts'
  12. Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli's Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO
  13. In Battistelli's Mini Union (Minion) It Takes Less Than 10 Votes to 'Win' an Election
  14. FFPE-EPO Going Ad Hominem Against FICSA, Brings Nationality Into It
  15. High on EPO: Battistelli's 'Social Conference' Nonsense is Intended to Help Suppress Debate About His Abuses Against Staff and Union-Busting Activities


This makes one wonder who's poking fun (or flinging hearsay) at Mr. Prunier -- and by extension at SUEPO -- right now. Who has something to gain from it, under the pretenses that SUEPO is a 'naughty' union that even harms the CSC? This morning we wrote about what actually happened because there are some evil tongues which engage in union-shaming (shaming SUEPO anonymously) and it's hard to view those as innocent. As one comment put it today:

You may indeed be correct about the correctness of the result of the disciplinary procedure. Or you may not. We cannot know and, according to the rules, shouldn't know in order to protect, in particular, the perceived victim. That is, however, not the issue. As the delegations to the AC have already pointed out, justice must be seen to be done. Procedural violations and/or lack of due process cannot be written off because the final decision was 'right' (if it was...). In the current case the guilty man still cannot reveal his crime or his defence because the system won't allow it. Meanwhile the judge can make statements about it which cannot be challenged publicly by the guilty party. A man loses his employment and future employment must be significantly limited given his dismissal. And yet he is not allowed to publicly defend himself?? I would be interested to hear whether you think the procedure and system in place is suitable. That is the question being raised here. The judgement on Laurent must wait for a fair system. I note in passing that you are revealing facts of the case, whether known to you privately or based on the president's communication to staff. In either case, you appear to be stating more than Laurent can. Doesn't it worry you that tomorrow there may be a knock on your door from the investigation unit?


Here is a familiar, legitimate point about the demand for harassment of staff, especially now that Battistelli made it a standard unit like a private police of his:



This year again approx. 50 warning letters will be issued in DG1, making sure the HR Conflict Resolution department has enough clientele for the coming year. A “Danse Obscure” all over again summoning all Staff Representatives to dance along into EPO’s obscure misery, affecting the AC, BoA, President, Management and staff. Strangely enough it unites us all!


Another person correctly points out that "SUEPO represents more than half of the EPO workstaff." Here is the full comment:



SUEPO represents more than half of the EPO workstaff. Staff Representatives are therefore representing a majority. Also, the union cannot send mails to all staff members anymore. That actually was the best thing anyone in the EPO ever did for the union, as man union-template appeals have been filed by jon-members, who do jot have access to the appeal-templates anymore, and therefore finally joined the EPI.... Also, I've never heard of non-SUEPO members having been turned down by Staff Representatives. Just like Anon E. Mouse I do not even know anybody having been asked if they're members of SUEPO when seeking help from Staff Representatives.

Last thing to comment on your post: the "staff representatives" in the Disciplinary Committee (non capital letters hee, as SR does not appoint Staff Representatives to the disciplinary committe anymore, but BB appoints "staff representatives" the administration "selects"). The SR ones resigned after ALL of them have been downgraded and/or warned for not having proposed harsh sanctions in previous procedures. The new "staff representatives" have even less protection than elected Staff Representatives (less visibility), and are therefore under immense pressure by the head of personal department. ILOAT already was negative about the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee.... Also, do not trust them to be "your" "staff representatives".

Please read the communique again, more carefully. There is a lot between the lines which looks absolutely bad to anyone above "director level". Alas, I see the management style trickling down to directors already, destroying the atmosphere. Now the EPO administration pushes for the possibilities that the first or chair can sign for the second member.... Which DG3 (now BoA) considers to be a procedural violation. Fun times.

(Q: the EPC (Article 10(3) EPC) provides that the president shall be assisted by a number of Vice-Presidents. How does a "President of the Boards of Appeal" fit this paragraph of Article 10 EPC?)


ILOAT is mentioned above and this is both noteworthy and timely. "Four judgments will be announced in public on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 at 3pm at the ILO," ILO has just said. We'll keep an eye on those and report when they come out.

When I first saw the union-shaming comment I jokingly said (in social media sites) that maybe it was FFPE-EPO that's behind it. My guess might actually have some merit to it, despite being a joke.

"The following letter," it's explained, "has been sent to the delegations of the Administrative Council on 9 June 2016 in order to assist them with the preparation of the Council meeting in June." A copy was sent to Battistelli as well (see last page, page 7), so this wasn't done behind his back, so to speak.

The full letter [PDF] says that "the President continues to deal exclusively with FFPE-EPO, a tiny union that counts 76 members in The Hague and no section in other places of employment. In their recent elections, 31 members voted. The new Chairman has received 9 (nine) votes. FFPE-EPO is systematically called to participate in working groups, including matters affecting places of employment where they have no section. The Office is misleadingly presenting this as a major success in “social dialogue”."

We must remember that Battistelli uses these nefarious tactics to pretend that there is "social" something (dialogue, study, conference, workshop etc.) while in reality he's 100% antisocial and he attacks the real staff representatives -- not those who are his yes men and chinchillas.

Is the Board (or the Council) wise enough to figure out the tricks Battistelli tries to pull on them?

Posted today in a separate (much older) thread is the following comment:

Board 28 meets this week. Any agenda?

Boards of Appeal Committee meets for the first time on 28.11? Anyone know if they are discussing Haar? Or the disciplinary case?? Is the first a fait accompli and the second perhaps another chance to re-open matters?


Leaked material (like the agenda) would be very much helpful to us. Anyone with access to it, please consider getting in touch with us. It's safe (we have a perfect record guarding sources).

Recent Techrights' Posts

[Meme] One Person, Singular Pronoun
Abusing people into abusing the English language is very poor diplomacy
New Article From Richard Stallman Explains Why He Says He and She for Unknown Person (Not 'They')
"Nowadays I use gender-neutral singular pronouns for a person whose gender I don't know"
 
Gemini Not Deflated Yet (Soon Turning 5!)
Gemini numbers still moving up, the protocol will turn five next summer
Links 30/11/2023: Belated End of Henry Kissinger and 'Popular Science' Shuts Online Magazine
Links for the day
Site Priorities and Upcoming Improvements
pages are served very fast
Ending Software Patents in Recent Years (Software Freedom Fighters MIA)
not a resolved issue
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, November 29, 2023
IRC logs for Wednesday, November 29, 2023
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news
Links 30/11/2023: Rushing Patent Cases With Shorter Trial Scheme (STS), Sanctions Not Working
Links for the day
Links 30/11/2023: Google Purging Many Accounts and Content (to Save Money), Finland Fully Seals Border With Russia
Links for the day
Lookout, It's Outlook
Outlook is all about the sharing!
Updated A Month Ago: Richard Stallman on Software Patents as Obstacles to Software Development
very recent update
The 'Smart' Attack on Power Grid Neutrality (or the Wet Dream of Tiered Pricing for Power, Essentially Punishing Poorer Households for Exercising Freedom Like Richer Households)
The dishonest marketing people tell us the age of disservice and discrimination is all about "smart" and "Hey Hi" (AI) as in algorithms akin to traffic-shaping in the context of network neutrality
Links 29/11/2023: VMware Layoffs and Too Many Microsofters Going Inside Google
Links for the day
Is BlueMail a Client of ZDNet Now?
Let's examine what BlueMail does to promote itself
Just What LINUX.COM Needed After Over a Month of Inactivity: SPAM SPAM SPAM (Linux Brand as a Spamfarm)
It's not even about Linux
Microsoft “Discriminated Based on Sexuality”
Relevant, as they love lecturing us on "diversity" and "inclusion"...
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, November 28, 2023
IRC logs for Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Media Cannot Tell the Difference Between Microsoft and Iran
a platform with back doors
Links 28/11/2023: New Zealand's Big Tobacco Pivot and Google Mass-Deleting Accounts
Links for the day
Justice is Still the Main Goal
The skulduggery seems to implicate not only Microsoft
OpenBSD Says That Even on Linux, Wayland Still Has a Number of Rough Edges (But IBM Wants to Make X Extinct)
IBM tries to impose unready software on users
[Teaser] Next Week's Part in the Series About Anti-Free Software Militants
an effort to 'cancel' us and spy on us
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news
Permacomputing
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Professor Eben Moglen on How Social Control Media Metabolises Humans and Constraints Freedom of Thought
Nothing of value would be lost if all these data-harvesting giants (profiling people) vanished overnight
IRC Proceedings: Monday, November 27, 2023
IRC logs for Monday, November 27, 2023
When Microsoft Blocks Your Access to Free Software
"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." [Chicago Sun-Times]
Techrights Statement on 'Cancel Culture' Going Out of Control
relates to a discussion we had in IRC last night
Stuff People Write About Linux
revisionist pieces
Links 28/11/2023: Rosy Crow 1.4.3 and Google Drive Data Loss
Links for the day