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