12.20.16

Leaked: After Vicious Attacks on SUEPO — in Defiance of the Administrative Council’s Demands! — Team Battistelli Pretends to Want Union Recognition

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Union busters in sheep’s clothing (another couple of traps from Battistelli and his mate’s wife)

Summary: Battistelli and his goons continue to try exploiting the politeness and good manners of staff representatives, but perhaps it’s time to step up the activity of the union (making it akin to activism, as they’re clearly not dealing with an ordinary ‘partner’)

SO THEN… Elodie Bergot, the mistress of injustice at the EPO (Battistelli’s henchwoman who throws false charges at people in order to render them unemployed, especially if they’re in the union), has been trying to entrap SUEPO again, in order to save face or keep up appearances, making it appear as though Battistelli is interested in union recognition while in reality he busts the unions like a madman, even when explicitly asked by his ‘supervisors’ (turned chinchillas) to refrain from doing so. What an evil woman! It’s not exactly surprising considering how she got her job at the EPO [1, 2, 3, 4]. Perfect fit for Battistelli. Here is the latest letter, dated yesterday, sent by SUEPO in response to the above letters, which are laughable at best given some of the latest developments.

19 December 2016
su16141cl – 4.6

Re-opening of discussions

Dear Mr Battistelli,

We refer to the letter of Ms Bergot dated 12 December 2016, inviting SUEPO to “resume discussion on the recognition of unions”. Before any return to the negotiation table, we need to clarify what the discussions should be about:

- Any discussion on how to “negotiate” would, we believe, be superfluous in a system that was broadly “in line with fundamental rights”.

- Any further discussion to try and persuade SUEPO to accept the same MoU signed by FFPE is pointless when, as stated in Ms Bergot’s letter of 14 November 2016, the Office is unwilling to deviate in any way from the existing text. If the Office is not open to negotiating a MoU to the satisfaction of both parties, there is nothing to discuss. A MoU should be the formal, written acknowledgement of a negotiated and agreed procedure on a particular issue: it is not a capitulation from one party to the unilaterally determined terms and conditions of another. For the avoidance of any doubt, we believe your MoU is so biased, that it practically asks the Union to abdicate its fundamental rights. Under these circumstances, there would appear to be nothing further for us to discuss on the current proposal.

- However, as you stated in the last Administrative Council meeting you would be prepared for to hold discussions without any precondition. Thus, this could be a way forward. We would like to remind you that these discussions should be held within the tripartite negotiation framework.

Furthermore, we remind you that prior to resuming discussions, we asked the Office to assure our officials that they will enjoy a safe environment within which negotiations take place. Again, this would normally be a “given” in a system broadly “in line with fundamental rights”. However, as recent events have clearly shown, this seems to be far from the case in the EPO, where the President apparently ignores even the instructions of the highest legislative and supervisory body in the EPO, the Administrative Council.

As already indicated by the staff representatives and repeated in the last Council meeting, the basis to restart any social dialogue is to follow-up and implements the Council resolution of March this year.

One of the stipulations was that disciplinary proceedings need to be “seen to be fair”: this means that pending the provision of revised and new investigation and disciplinary proceedings, any ongoing investigation or disciplinary proceedings must be suspended. Please note that this was reiterated by the Council.

Furthermore, the already imposed disciplinary sanctions against staff representatives and union officials need also to be seen to be fair. Again, in line with the Council resolution, this would require to withdraw or at least suspend the sanctions pending a review of the cases with “the involvement of an external reviewer or of arbitration or mediation”.

We note that in the recent Council you committed to present revised investigation, disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures for approval in the June 2017 Council. We are prepared to contribute to any discussions on these issues within the framework of the tripartite negotiations.

We also note the attempt in the final sentence of Ms Bergot’s letter (of 12 December 2016) to dictate who may or may not be part of SUEPO’s negotiating team. Any such limitation constitutes an interference with our fundamental freedom of association.

To conclude: the reopening of any discussions (including those on union recognition) is in your hands: commit to implementing the unanimous Council resolution; commit to recognising and enforcing fundamental rights; be open to bona fide negotiations through genuine dialogue; treat us as an equal social partner. Under these very normal conditions, we can surely work something out.

Our message to SUEPO: don’t fall for it.

Readers of ours have been insisting for a while that SUEPO has been far too gentle and courteous with Battistelli, who is an aggressive, manipulative thug. There’s no room for negotiation with someone like this, unless one wishes to be hired by him to become a mercenary.

People we speak to (not even from the EPO) believe that SUEPO should escalate and start treating Battistelli as a combative, irrational person, not as a President. Otherwise they might continue to be crushed and repressed. One thing they can do is represent themselves anonymously (no names, no publicly-known structure).

“Bureaucracy is spreading like cancer cells,” argued another person. So is corruption, bribery, fraud, etc. The EPO is full of that and it threatens those brave enough to point that out. Here is the full comment, which deals with the lack of large countries voting to send appeal boards away (while Battistelli gives "carrots" to small countries whose vote are of equal weight).

If the big ones complain about being outvoted by the small countries, why did neither UK, FR,… request a weighted vote?
This has a financial impact, so they have a right to request it…

What about INCOMPETENCE? why should EPO’s admin council be better staffed than the EU? Bureaucracy is spreading like cancer cells. Those who dispose upon expertise are mobbed until they shut up so that minions and accolytes of the tyran concentrate all power to serve the will of the chosen one…

If you could see them live you would not believe it ! pathetic, sad, and of course self-destructing

At the EPO, as another person put it, “Private Minnoye ends his professional career in disgrace.” The following long comment explained this also in relation to the staff union, SUEPO:

After having served the soup to his master loyaly during 5 years, having endured all kinds of vexatious statements from Battistelli who is known to behave like a spoiled child, having worked 24/7 (even with broken rips!!!) to please his Chef at all costs, Private Minnoye ends his professional career in disgrace.

Sent home some would say kicked out almost like a SUEPO official, “for private reasons” the official story telling has it. However little birds have it that VP1 would have lost his position after numerous failures among which those below for which “a head at to roll” and preferably not that of the Grand Battistelli of course:

- Minnoye would have embarassed himself (no worries: he did not notice it) and the EPO when he gave his amazing interview to the Dutch TV (remember when he stated one day before the Cassatie hearing that the EPO would not respect the decision of the Cassatie should it be against the EPO, or that all investigations against SUEPO officials were a mere ‘toefal’);

- Minnoye would not have been able to manover via his usual ‘free masons’ network and avoid the public debate soon to be organised in the Dutch parliament (about despicable social situation at EPO);

- Minnoye would also pay for the work quality which is going down the drain as never before (major applicants in particular in NL and DE would have complained at the highest political levels);

- A culprit had to be found for the miserable failure of the IT Roadmap (above and over 100 Mio EUR of EPO money (actually applicants’ money) were wasted in a few years by a handful of utterly incompetent actors). Here Battistelli decided to preserve his personal friend (René Kraft (FR) whom he recruited and bombarded at the head of IM with all freiraum to do what he wanted and who so far pathetically failed to deliver a single IT program worth 1/10th of the price paid). The solution was a no-brainer for Battistelli: protect his friend Kraft and get rid the old flemmish Private Minnoye;

- Finally the EPO ‘Trump-like bling tower’ in construction in TH (by a FR star architect) is late on schedule. This is likely to have a little (read A LOT OF) impact financially with costs sky rocketing soon. Thereto Minnoye is said to have failed (as site manager for The Hague to keep this on tracks).

Remember ABBA’s lyrics ?

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world

In another thread someone mentioned the yellow union, FFPE-EPO, as follows:

the Union FFPE-EPO always points out, that the beloved MoU is a “Gentleman’s Agreement”.
Now it becomes clear, why the “official union” never complains. They knew right from the start how they’ll be treated, and are happy to sit at a table, to discuss things that are neither urgent, nor in need of their input anyway….

Here is a message about Mr. Prunier (LP) from SUEPO. Ion Brumme and Laurent Prunier are currently receiving bread funds (“Broodfonds”) from colleagues whom they represented and defended (with one-off donations and standing orders). The message said:

I supported IB with a one-off, and subsequently supported and will support LP with monthly donations for the next years to come. But I only get feedback from LP, as I am not in the mailing lists for Munich…

They both risked a lot for us, and for that I would be more than ungrateful if I would not spend a bit…
I hope they continue their fight, and see the money as a kind of salary to invest their time for the union and the fight against the way the rules have been implemented.

But life is frustrating, and I do understand that they may need some time to take a step backwards.
Especially LP with what happened in his private life recently.

The EPO is not a patent office. It has become something political and something deeply disturbing where budget is thrown at relatives, friends, and is increasingly used as a vehicle for corrupting the media, buying ‘favours’, mislead the public and so on. SUEPO needs to get even stronger and if fear of retaliation (or “reprisal” as they call it) is enough to discourage some from participating, then harness anonymity-preserving tools and give the EPO’s management a good fight because the EPO simply self-detonates under Battistelli (that’s exactly where the EPO has been heading).

Staff unions exist to exercise of exert control over the institutions staff works for; right now there is one person turning not just the Office into a toy (for him to break) but also the Administrative Council into a toothless laughing stock. The whole Organisation is compromised and staff has a duty to serve stakeholders, including Europeans, not just some lunatic in a suit.

Save the EPO before it’s too late. █

Permalink  Send this to a friend