Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-13-Speech-4-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050113.5.4-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, on 9 June 2004 the College of the Commission decided to dismiss 43 language teachers with almost immediate effect. Nine days later the officials responsible reported this decision to the teachers themselves at a general assembly in Brussels. I should like to quote directly from what two of the teachers said on that occasion:
'We denounce the flagrant lack of openness on the part of the Commission, who waited until today to announce the breaking of the teachers' contracts. In a Europe which claims to be social, we also denounce the cynicism of the Commission, which has plunged these workers into great difficulties - workers, some of whom are main bread-winners with children, many of whom are women. Most of these teachers are of an age at which it would be extremely difficult to find suitable employment. In the March 1997 trialogue agreement the teachers showed their willingness to collaborate in return for a promise by the Commission to maintain their contracts until retirement. Not so long ago Miss Morelli, in charge of training in the Council, in the presence of Commission representatives, reaffirmed on several occasions that the jobs of the teachers were guaranteed until they retired. We wish to record formally the breaking of these promises by the Commission.'
I believe that lengthy quote sums up a sad story very well. I have met with the dismissed teachers many times in recent months and have read a great deal of documentation from the time leading up to their dismissal. From that a number of things stand out. First, that for the teachers this decision came like a bolt from the blue. They were given absolutely no prior information about the plans for their dismissal. They were not consulted at all about those plans. Documents from throughout 2003 and the first half of 2004 show that at a whole series of meetings the teachers were given the impression that everything was fine, it was business as usual. One set of papers from mid-2003 actually dismisses rumours of planned restructuring. Other papers show the perfectly normal forward-planning of language training for the 2004-05 period but suddenly, in June 2004, the teachers learned of their abrupt dismissal.
Secondly, it stands out that the Commission clearly feels that it is above and beyond the law. Any private entity behaving in the way that the Commission has would find itself in breach of EU laws on information and consultation, collective redundancies and transfer of undertakings. No doubt we will be told today that the Belgian laws giving effect to these EU directives do not apply to the Commission as a public administration, and yet these teachers were employed on Belgian employment contracts that are subject to Belgian employment law. This is the same institution that asks the corporate world to act in a socially responsible way and yet the way in which it has handled this matter so far has been totally socially irresponsible.
Thirdly, the Commission has shown a total lack of regard for the plight of these people. Over 60% of them are aged over 55. Six months after the Commission decision their worst fears about not finding work at their age have proved only too real. Worse still, because of the restricted hours they were allowed under the contracts the Commission agreed with them it appears, according to a document I have received, that: 'the teachers may not be entitled to unemployment benefits, early retirement and social security cover'. That would leave them without cover until the age of 65, when their entitlement would become about EUR 500 per month. Clearly a number of the families dependent on these teachers face the real prospect of poverty.
Finally, in relation to the trialogue agreement of 1997, the teachers and their representatives had the clearest understanding that they would be employed until retirement in exchange for agreeing new work practices and to work being put out to outside firms as teachers left. This was widely published at the time – in trade union newsletters, for example – and no-one from the Commission seemed to have contradicted that. A Commission official said something telling to us when we questioned her on this in committee. She said that sometime after the trialogue agreement the Commission's legal service was asked to give an opinion on whether such a guarantee was possible. The service said that it was not possible. An important question arises from that. Why was the legal service asked to give an opinion if such a guarantee had not been given at the trialogue?
It seems clear that, whether committed to writing or not, such a guarantee was indeed given and that the Commission, having sat silent at the many meetings at which that guarantee has been mentioned since, was quite content to allow everyone to continue with that understanding until it became opportune to go back to that legal opinion.
The Commission has behaved in a disgraceful manner. However, it is never too late. I understand that a meeting will take place tomorrow between the Commission and the unions in Brussels. I hope that will be the first step towards reinstatement of these teachers."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples