01.19.16

SLAPP-Happy EPO Vice-President Željko Topić Loses Croatian Defamation Lawsuit — AGAIN!

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Case over alleged bribery resurfaces, lost by Topić

Summary: Topić has just lost — yet again! — a case over claims about ‘missing’ cars (related to a famous case in Croatia, one that landed several high officials in Zagreb’s prison, including the Prime Minister of Croatia)

THANKS to our invaluable sources in Croatia (and also outside Croatia), we now have an update regarding the Croatian defamation lawsuit, initiated by Topić in an effort to silence a legitimate critic who spoke to officials (very much like the suspended judge at the EPO, who is also alleged to have spoken about Topić’s alleged crimes to European officials). Some local (Croatian) reporters refer to Željko Topić as Ivo 'Sanader’s Protégé' (Sanader is in prison now).

Techrights has done much of the (usually exclusive) English language overage about this whole scandal before, including this one case in particular (there are reportedly more cases). In chronological order, here are some of the articles we wrote about this subject:

• Suspicion of High-Level Corruption at the European Patent Office (EPO): Part I
• Vesna Stilin’s Remarks on Željko Topić: Part XI
• Vesna Stilin Renews Her Fight for Justice in Željko Topić Case (EPO VP)
• Breaking: EPO Vice-President Željko Topić Loses Defamation Case in Croatia
• Text of Ruling/Decision Against Željko Topić (Regarding Audi as a Bribe)
• English Translation of Ruling Against Željko Topić (EPO VP) in Croatian Court
• German Translation of Ruling Against Željko Topić, the EPO’s Vice-President
• Željko Topić’s History in SIPO Leaves a Legacy of Alleged DZIV Vehicles (Bribes), Authorship Abuses, and Intimidation Against Reporters
• Translation of Full Judgment Against Željko Topić in Croatian Defamation Case Over Bribery (Mercedes/Audi) and More

Here is some of the latest information about the famous (or should that be “infamous”) Croatian defamation lawsuit.

Following the Judgment of the Municipal Criminal Court delivered on the 28^th of January (2015) which acquitted Vesna Stilin was of the charges raised against her by Topić, Topić filed an appeal.

According to available information, he requested the Appeal Court to remit the case to a different judge for a retrial.

The Appeal Court decided that the case should be sent back to the same judge at the court of first instance (Marijan Bertalanić) for the correction of some minor formal errors relating to the citation of the applicable provisions of Croatian criminal law.

In the mean time, Topić ditched his original lawyer Janjko Grlić of the prominent and politically well-connected Zagreb law firm Gajski, Grlić, Prka & Partners and switched to another well-known Croatian law firm Šerić and Šerić operated by Mr. Branko Šerić and his son Aljoša Šerić [1, 2].

When the defamation case against Vesna Stilin was reopened before judge Marijan Bertalanić, Topić requested the hearing of further witnesses and the judge allowed this.

At a Court hearing on the 23^th of September (2015), Topić was represented by Aljoša Šerić but didn’t appear in person.

The witnesses which Topić had requested to be heard turned out to be a disaster for him.

• The first witness was a former chauffeur at the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office who excused himself from attending the hearing due to health problems.
• The second witness was an employee of the SIPO who said that she didn’t know anything about the subject of the hearing. She explained that she had only joined the SIPO after Stilin’s departure so that she had no direct knowledge of the conflict between Stilin and Topić.
• The third and final witness was Ms. Ljiljana Kuterovac, the current Director-General of the SIPO and Croatia’s representative on the EPO’s Administrative Council who is said to Topić’s protegée. Kuterovac said that she understood the subject of the hearing as she had been informed about it by Topić. When asked about the public lending right (PLR), she claimed that the SIPO had done everything necessary for its implementation in Croatia. However she admitted that the PLR was outside her area of expertise and that she didn’t know the precise details of the conflict between Stilin and Topić.

A final court hearing was scheduled for the 18^th of December (2015). Topić and his lawyer didn’t appear for this hearing with the excuse that Topić had official duties that prevented him from attending.

The hearing was rescheduled for the 14^th of January, 2016 (that’s just a few days ago).

Despite having been duly summoned, neither Topić nor his lawyer turned up for the January hearing. The judge was surprised and wondered what was going on as Topić had failed to notify the Court of his non-attendance. In the end, a decision to discontinue the proceedings under Article 401 par. 2 of the Croatian Criminal Procedure Code was issued.

Unless he decides to appeal the decision, it seems that Topić’s defamation proceedings against Vesna Stilin are now closed.

A copy of the minutes of the court hearing has been sent to us along with an English translation. Here is the original in Croatian [PDF] and a translation into English (with original structure preserved) [PDF]. For those who don’t like PDF files, here is the somewhat flattened text as HTML:

REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb
Ilica – Selska, Ilica 207

File ref. no.: 7. K-586/15

MINUTES
of 14 January 2016

Present for the Court:
Marijan Bertalanić
(Presiding Judge – Judge)

Ankica Zorić
(Registrar)

Criminal case:
Private prosecutor: Željko Topić

Defendant: Vesna Stilin

For the criminal offence pursuant to
Article 200/2 et alia of the Criminal Code

The presiding judge opened the hearing at 13:35 and announced the subject matter of the trial. The presence of the parties was established as follows:

1. For the private prosecutor [Željko Topić] – nobody, legal representative of the private prosecutor, Branko Seric – nobody
2. Injured party:
3. Defendant: Vesna Stilin, legal representative of the defendant, attorney-at-law Zoran Životić
4. Witnesses:

It is established that the summons issued to the private prosecutor [Željko Topić] was returned with an annotation from the courier “notified, did not collect delivery” and that the duly summoned legal representative of the private prosecutor, attorney-at-law Branko Seric was not in attendance.

The Judge delivers the following

DECISION

Pursuant to Art. 401 par. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the criminal proceedings against the defendant Vesna Stilin in the matter of the private prosecution by Željko Topić from 4th February 2011 are discontinued. Completed at 13:39.

Judge:

Registrar:

So Topić didn’t even show up in a SLAPP case that he himself had initiated. We already explained here before why we believe this wasn’t his first SLAPP action (in an effort to cover up abuses). Months ago I too became a victim of these ugly tactics.

While this case, on its own (there are reportedly more), does not prove criminality, it does serve to disprove claims that allegations of criminality are false. In other words, Željko Topić cannot effectively defend himself from Stilin’s accusations, which definitely lends credibility to these accusations. Based on the bizarre apology posted by a key source (similar to the EPO’s demands from me), we have reasonable grounds for suspicion that Topić went on an expedition to silence his exposers, to the point of threatening them with defamation lawsuits (so that they delete/remove incriminating evidence). That’s what out-of-control rich people tend to do when they cannot win an argument. Is Battistelli going to announce this decision to his staff in an internal communiqué or will he just deceive the staff by omission again?

As a side note, Topić’s new lawyer, Branko Šerić, is known in Croatia for his role as a Defence Counsel in the case of Vinko Martinović before the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. See the details here [PDF]. More recently, he has acted as defence counsel in a number of high-profile cases involving allegations of corruption during the Sanader era such as the “Maestro” [1, 2] and “HEP” cases [1, 2]. Aljoša Šerić is something of a minor celebrity in his home country. Apart from his membership of the legal profession, he pursues a parallel career in music and has played with the Croatian groups “Ramirez” (band) and “Pavel“. █

“In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.”

–Tacitus

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Poor Journalism From Süddeutsche Zeitung Perpetuates the EPO Management’s Lies

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Irresponsible journalism, blindly trusts the words of Battistelli and his PR team

Summary: One of the leading ‘mainstream’ sources which covers EPO matters, Süddeutsche Zeitung, gets many of the facts wrong and by doing so helps the PR strategy of Team Battistelli

TOMORROW’S EPO protest is justified for many different reasons. Several people sent us a translation of the Süddeutsche Zeitung article (we hadn't foreseen the possibility of several people doing so at the same time). Süddeutsche Zeitung covers the EPO affairs quite often. Examples (so far) included:

• Süddeutsche Zeitung Explains Imminent Federal Scrutiny Against Battistelli’s EPO in Germany
• English Translation of Süddeutsche Zeitung Article About Benoît Battistelli, Željko Topić, and EPO Tyranny
• Süddeutsche Zeitung Says Talking Helps While EPO Management Back-stabs Other Side of the Table
• Süddeutsche Zeitung Article About the EPO’s Investigation Unit and Control Risks Group
• Translation of Süddeutsche Zeitung Article Calling for External Oversight of Data Protection at the EPO
• Full Translation of Süddeutsche Zeitung Article About Blackhat Tactics (Keyloggers) in EPO (Updated)
• A State Within a State: Süddeutsche Zeitung Article About the EPO’s Bizarre Existence Above the Law

The following is the first translation we’ve received of the latest article. It’s not a long article. “The article contains several errors,” told us the translator, “for example that the third staff member will not be promoted for three years (in fact, she was downgraded) and that the union leader will appeal at an international Patent Court (appeals concerning employment at the EPO can only be filed at the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization ILO, not at a Patent Court).

“The reporter who wrote this article, Katja Riedel, has also written the other articles about the EPO that were published in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. She tends to repeat the statements of the EPO management in a rather unreflected manner, without questioning them and without gathering further background information.”

Here is the translation:

Head of union dismissed

European Patent Office justifies dismissal with reputation-damaging campaign

Katja Riedel

On Friday, the ongoing conflict between parts of the workforce and the management of the European Patent Office headed by President Benoît Battistelli has reached a new level of escalation. Battistelli has decided to dismiss the head of the union Suepo and another union member. This was revealed in an internal letter, to which the Süddeutsche Zeitung has access to. A third staff member, who was also subjected to a disciplinary procedure conducted by the Office, will not be promoted for three years.

Battistelli and an officially appointed disciplinary committee, in which also staff representatives participated, considered as proven that the head of the union had participated in a defamatory campaign against the Office. She was also accused of having bullied other elected staff representatives. She has always denied this vehemently and, through her lawyers, claimed having been bullied herself for years. She is now going to ask the president to revise his decision. If this is not successful, she will file an appeal at an international Patent Court. This process usually takes years.

For almost two years a severe conflict has been going on at the European Patent Office, whose headquarters are located in Munich. Repeatedly, thousands of employees went to the streets to protest against the French [president] Battistelli. They complained that they were denied basic labor rights. The Office considers these protests to be part of a smear campaign against the Office’s management. Proceedings against a patent judge, a member of a Technical Board of Appeal, are still ongoing. According to an internal investigation report, he is said to be responsible for the smear campaign, supported by a small number of other people. He denies this vehemently. He said that he collected incriminating documents (that were found with him) out of personal interest. He is suspended. However, the institutional body which would have to agree on his dismissal has a different opinion about the available evidence than the Office’s management. For this reason, no decision has been taken so far about this matter.

Our translator was correct about the factual errors, which do reveal some misunderstanding or insufficient background (the author at Heise did not make such errors). The above also repeated some lies from the management — lies that we wrote about and rebutted earlier today [1, 2].

“To avoid such embarrassments (Süddeutsche Zeitung‘s Katja Riedel in this case) we strongly urge journalists not to take anything from the EPO’s mouth without a barrel of salt.”This is not good journalism. The EPO’s management and spokespeople cannot be trusted. To avoid such embarrassments (Süddeutsche Zeitung‘s Katja Riedel in this case) we strongly urge journalists not to take anything from the EPO’s mouth without a barrel of salt. They have an appalling track record when it comes to truthful statements, they're pushy, and they’re backed by professional liars (with a budget of nearly $1 million per year).

Another translation of the article in German was sent to us later.

“Here is a translation of the requested article published in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung“, wrote this translator. “IMHO it is interesting to note that this short article contains substantial errors. In particular the head of the union will not challenge to decision in front of a “Internal Patent Court”. This just doesn’t make sense! The third staff member referred to in the Article is supposedly Malika Weaver. I haven’t read the text of the sanctions against her but the assertion that the “third staff member will not be promoted in the next three years” seems at least ridiculous. Not being promoted in the next three years is, according to the new career system, commonplace for the average staff and therefore not a disciplinary measure. Is FTI alkso writing for the Süddeutsche Zeitung?”

Well, perhaps. FTI Consulting is already funneling EPO money into publications such as IAM 'magazine'. Anyway, here is the second translation:

January the 15th, 2016, 18:55

Dispute escalates

Dismissed union boss

European Patent Office justifies the expulsion with reputational campaign

By Katja Riedel

The ongoing conflict between parts of the workforce and the head of the European Patent Office, President Benoît Battistelli, has reached a new level of escalation on Friday. Battistelli has decided to dismiss the head of the union Suepo and another union member. This emerges from an internal letter, which we have at the Süddeutsche Zeitung. A third staff member, against whom the Office has also conducted a disciplinary procedure will, not get any promotion in the next three years.

Battistelli and an appointed disciplinary committee, in which also staff representatives supposedly have sat, considered it thus as proven, that the union boss had participated in a defamatory campaign against the Office. She was also accused that she had bullied other elected staff representatives. She has always denied this vehemently; she rose through her lawyers in turn allegations that she had been bullied for years. She now plans to ask the President to revise the decision. If this is not successful, she wants to sue with an internal Patent Court (TRANSLATOR’S NOTE: rather internal appeal committee). These procedures usually take years. For almost two years, a bitter conflict is raging around the European Patent Office, whose headquarters are located in Munich. Again and again thousands of employees went against Frenchman Battistelli on the road. They complained that they were denied basic labour rights. The Office alleges that the protests alone have the effect of a smear campaign against the Office management. There is a case still pending against a patent judge, member of the Technical Board of Appeal. According to an internal investigation report, he is said to have been masterminding said campaign with a few other people . He himself denies this vehemently. Incriminating documents that were found with him, should he have wanted to collected out of private interest. The man is suspended. The competent body which would have to agree with a dismissal, however, has a different view on the collected evidence. For this reason a decision is still pending.

Judging by this translation too, the facts aren’t quite right. Was there any fact-checking at all? A rushed job perhaps? Either way, these aren’t the facts. They’re Battistelli’s warped version of the ‘truth’ (reality distortion). Did someone pull Katja Riedel’s strings? We’ve heard all sorts of stories about how the EPO’s PR team manipulates journalists. █

“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.”

–Andre Gide

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Management and Its PR Team a Den of Liars, Even Lying to Their Own Staff

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

I did not have… to tolerate people who speak about my abuses.

Summary: A closer look at the nonsensical prose used to justify the firing of staff representatives rather than those whom they complained about

THE EPO is so scandalous that long ago it gave up pretending that it can be trusted. Why are some journalists still swallowing all the lies from the EPO?

After reportedly lying to its staff, we’re seriously left wondering why any journalists at all are willing to believe the EPO's PR team (backed by an American PR firm with an EPO budget of nearly $1 million per year), let aside Battistelli whose name goes at the bottom of many ludicrous statements that the EPO’s PR team keeps linking to (even several times per day and even one week later).

The letter which we showed here beforehand, demonstrating how the EPO's PR team characterises staff union busting as "social dialogue" or "union recognition" (spreading this lie to the media at the moment) was, according to our source, “sent before the three officials were “liquidated”.”

Now we have the following “communiqué” with Battistelli’s name at the bottom (maybe it’s ghostwritten by his department and just signed by him):

Home -> Organisation -> President -> The President -> Announcements -> 2016

Communiqué 2/2016

15.01.2016

Outcome of disciplinary procedures

Dear colleagues,

Last November, I informed you that instances of anti-social and unlawful misconduct concerning a few employees had been established (see Communiqué. 17.11.2015).

Disciplinary procedures were launched and I have now received the opinions of the three disciplinary committees composed of representatives nominated by the management and the staff representation. The disciplinary committees concerned have unanimously considered that the cases involved very serious breaches, justifying high sanctions, including dismissal.

Before taking my decisions, I have paid great attention to the fact that the employees involved are staff representatives who enjoy a higher level of protection and freedom of expression, having in mind their particular duties. It must be underlined that these cases relate to personal failures of the employees and have nothing to do with the social dialogue and staff representative activities. The status of staff representatives or union leaders can not avoid personal liability.

The charges relate to the active participation in the very damaging defamation campaign against the Organisation, the EPO management and individual staff members; to direct threats and coercion expressed against staff members and staff representatives; and to undue financial and moral pressure against EPO employees. Moreover, pressure has been brought against witnesses during the investigations and repetitive disclosures of confidential material have occurred, some linked to the security and safety of the Office and its staff.

In addition to the disrespect shown towards the Organisation and its legal framework, the respondents, prior and during the procedures, disregarded systematically the applicable rules and persisted in their behaviour despite several reminders. They showed a complete lack of awareness concerning the consequences of their unlawful actions and a surprising lack of empathy towards the victims, which is impossible to overlook. None of them acknowledged their wrongdoings, nor did they express their intention not to repeat them.

An employment relationship is based on trust, loyalty and respect of a corpus of rules. Any employee, including staff representatives and union leaders, has to act in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT. After considering all the facts and individual actions, high sanctions, including dismissal in two cases, are justified and proportionate.

Benoît Battistelli
President

Having just published the text of the EPO internal communiqué, now it’s time to respond to it by basically rewriting it as follows:

Home -> Organisation -> President -> The President -> Announcements -> 2016

Communiqué 2/2016

15.01.2016

Outcome of mock trials

Dear slaves,

Last November, I informed you that instances of whistle-blowing against my unlawful misconduct concerning a few employees had been established (see Communiqué. 17.11.2015).

Mock trials were duly launched and I have now received the opinions of the three disciplinary committees composed of representatives nominated by the management and the staff representation. I ignored these opinions, as they were designed to just give the illusion of peer judgment, then rewrote everything and exacerbated the judgment/punishment for I am a clue-ful autocrat. The disciplinary committees concerned have unanimously considered that the cases involved very serious acts of whistle-blowing, justifying high sanctions, which I made even more severe because they embarrassed me.

Before taking my personal decisions, for here we have an autocracy, not a meritocracy or a democracy, I have paid great attention to the fact that the employees involved are charismatic and popular so they enjoy a higher level of protection and freedom of expression, having in mind their particular threat to my undisclosed (but astronomical) annual salary. It must be underlined that these cases relate to personal failures of my regime which has nothing to do with social dialogue and actively denies staff representative activities. The status of staff representatives or union leaders cannot expose abuse at the managerial ranks. Me and my homies have immunity and impunity.

The charges relate to the active participation in the very damaging (to my reputation) whistle-blowing campaign. It dares to mention the Organisation, the EPO management and individual staff members; to misinterpreted jokes and disagreement expressed against staff members and staff representatives; and to undue financial and moral pressure against managers. Moreover, pressure has been brought against managers of the mock trial during the mock trial and repetitive disclosures of confidential material about a secretive mock trial have occurred, some linked to the perceived (by me) security and safety of the Office and my homies.

In addition to the disrespect shown towards the abusive management and its illegal framework, the respondents, prior and during the procedures, disregarded systematically my unjust rules and persisted in their behaviour despite several reminders. They showed a complete lack of awareness concerning the consequences of their free speech and a surprising lack of empathy towards the accusers, which is impossible to overlook. None of them acknowledged my accusations or accepted guilt, nor did they express their intention not to ignore me.

An employment relationship is based on trust, loyalty and respect of a corpus of rules. Any employee, including a President, has to act in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT. After considering all the facts and individual actions — actions that showed I had been repeatedly ignoring rules, not acting in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT — I decided I must shoot the messengers. High sanctions, including dismissal in two cases, are necessary to protect my monarchy. Long live Team Battistelli!

Benoît Battistelli
Sun King

“In the Hardon dismissal letter,” one person told us, “there is a clear allusion to the [actions against a judge] and an admission that spyware is installed on PCs.” That letter too was signed by Battistelli. This isn’t just an autocrat but a vicious and merciless one. Battistelli is not even being honest to his own staff! █

“Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heal that has crushed it.”

–Mark Twain

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Battistelli “Exacerbated the Penalties Which Were Recommended by the Disciplinary Committees for All Three EPO Unionists” (Under Mock Trial)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The autocrat in chief, Benoît Battistelli, ‘pulls a Putin’ (or Francisco Franco) again

Summary: The statements made by Benoît Battistelli to his staff are said to be (once again!) a big lie, based on people familiar with these matters

TECHRIGHTS repeatedly asked for a translation of the report from Heise (article about the firing of staff representatives) because the author is insightful and has covered these matters for quite some time. He is not easy for the EPO and its aggressive PR team to bamboozle, unlike some other journalists (more on that later).

Here is a complete English translation of the article:

European Patent Office fires union leadership

The head of the European Patent Office has imposed harsh sanctions in disciplinary proceedings against three trade unionists: two of them are dismissed and the treasurer is downgraded.

The dispute between management and union representatives at the European Patent Office (EPO) has escalated. EPO President Benoît Battistelli has now taken drastic measures in disciplinary proceedings against three trade unionists. According to the information of Heise Online, Elizabeth Hardon, the chairman of the EPO’s trade union Suepo, and her predecessor Ion Brumme, have been dismissed. The treasurer of the trade union, Malika Weaver, is downgraded.

Sanctions “justified”

In a letter to which Heise Online has access to, Battistelli writes to the around 7000 staff members of the EPO that he took his decisions based on the recommendations of three disciplinary committees, in which both representatives of management and employees were involved. [According to Mr. Battistelli], these came to the conclusion that the accused committed serious infringements. The serious penalties were thus “justified and proportionate”.

According to information from the IPKat blog, Battistelli has however exacerbated the penalties which were recommended by the disciplinary committees (for all three unionists).

[In addition to what was proposed by the disciplinary committees], also Mrs Hardon’s pension rights were reduced, Mr Brumme should “only” be degraded and for Mrs Weavers, it was only recommended to put her career advancement on hold. They may appeal against the decision at the International Labour Court ILOAT, however that’s a process which takes years.

“Malicious slander campaign”

The office’s management accuses the trade unionists, among other things, to have threatened or bullied employees and to have informed third parties of the internal investigations. “I carefully took into account that the employees concerned are staff representatives and that they enjoy a higher degree of protection and freedom of expression, in accordance with their tasks” Battistelli said further. However, as he said, they were involved in a “very damaging smear campaign against the organization.” The Administrative Council of the EPO had recently shown concern and had recommended Battistelli to keep a low profile.

The Administrative Council recommended Battistelli to keep a low profile? Is that it? If this is the best they can do (similar to the way BBC covered up for Savile and FIFA did for Blatter), then contact delegates immediately and demand urgent action.

Remember that EPO management once banned linking to Heise (it threatened SUEPO for merely linking to an article from Heise). The EPO under Battistelli is absolutely nuts. Nuts! █

“Don`t let people drive you crazy when you know it`s in walking distance.”

–JAuthor Unknown

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Tomorrow’s EPO Protest to Target Union-busting Actions Disguised as ‘Social Dialogue’ or ‘Union Recognition’

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Team Battistelli is socially engineering the staff unions in order to save face

Summary: The public relations offensive (attack on EPO staff) reaches absurd levels as the actions taken to crush unions are being framed as exactly the opposite of that, even in the media

MANY outsiders still struggle to keep abreast or on top of the EPO scandals because there are many of them happening concurrently and some are at best loosely connected.

Two essential background articles (to this latest article) involve the tiny Dutch union called FFPE-EPO, which is said to be quite close to Bergot (we covered this before). Based on numerous comments we have seen, FFPE-EPO is now being used/exploited — whether with FFPE-EPO’s consent or not — as a weapon against SUEPO. The management seems to be using FFPE-EPO as a “good boy” or a “model child”. The plurality of unions (at least on the surface) facilitates ‘divide and rule’ tactics. FFPE-EPO is rumoured to have just a few dozen members (they declined to reveal how many), whereas SUEPO, based on the following numbers, has about 100 times as many. To quote this comment from yesterday:

From the activity report SUEPO Munich 2014/2015:
Active members (Munich):
1.1.2014: 1643
1.1.2015: 1673
1.1.2016: 1859

The conflict shows who my colleagues trust….
- one of those EPO employees

Based on documents that we shared here before, the EPO’s management is now launching an attack on the very sign-up mechanism (like command and control) of SUEPO. It’s part of the decapitation strategy; SUEPO's rapid growth is clearly scaring Team Battistelli. Several days ago someone leaked to us the following letter:

13 January 2016
su16002cl –5.1/5.3

To: Ms Elodie Bergot
PD Human Resources
R. 718
Munich Isar

SUEPO Participation to WG on Union Recognition

Dear Ms Bergot,

We refer to your request dated 8 January 2016 that a SUEPO delegation attend a meeting about the “recognition of unions” on 20 January.

You have already been informed of the reasons why we had to decline former invitations. Please refer to our letters of 9 June 2015 to Mr Kongstad (su15228cl) and of 25 June 2015 to you (su15272cl), both of which have remained unanswered.

The same reasons apply even more now, since the administration – in particular at your behest – has further worsened the situation by suspending three SUEPO officials in Munich, tormenting another one in The Hague, even during his sick leave, and even trying to intimidate an employee of SUEPO The Hague. Despite the apparent wish of the Administrative Council in its December session to deescalate the conflict, the Office has since accelerated the process that will likely lead – if not stopped – to severe disciplinary sanctions against several SUEPO officials.

It is disingenuous to make a pretense of seeking dialogue with SUEPO while simultaneously targeting SUEPO officials in such a way. Accordingly, we will not attend the meeting, and place the responsibility for this entirely on you, acting under delegation of power from the President, whilst the Administrative Council is fully aware of the situation. Should the Office decide to lift the suspensions, remove all threats and stop all intimidations on SUEPO officials in all sites, we would of course be ready to immediately reconsider our position.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Michels
Chair SUEPO Central

Elizabeth Hardon
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Munich

Alain Rosé
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO The Hague

Wolfgang Manntz
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Berlin

David Dickinson
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Vienna

.cc EPO President
.cc AC Chairman (with request to inform all AC delegations)
.cc Board 28 members

We hope this explains why those people organise more protests. Why tomorrow? Well, WIPR has just dropped the hint when quoting the PT team: “A spokesperson for the EPO told WIPR that the office’s management intends to resume its “social dialogue” with the union.

“A meeting to discuss union recognition talks is set for Wednesday, January 20. This is the same day that SUEPO is due to hold another demonstration in support of the three members.”

Got that? The EPO’s marketing bunnies now pretend to have “union recognition talks”, less than a week after firing some of the most essential and most charismatic SUEPO representatives. How do Team Battistelli members sleep at night? Calling them liars would be an understatement. They also keep up the claims of “violence” from SUEPO (total fiction based on a deleted comment, but see the WIPR article repeating these claims). At least now we can guess what FTI Consulting is preparing behind the scenes, except propaganda events. Expect more socially-engineered ‘unions’ to emerge (Battistelli-leaning ones); this will be the subject of a future post of ours. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Links 19/1/2016: qBittorrent 3.3.2, Manjaro Linux 15.12

Posted in News Roundup at 10:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend