Injustice LABOUR
The Senate has approved the draft Law 1167-B. Once approved, having already passed the House, the design will become law once promulgated by the President of the Republic. It is the most shocking of all time in terms of reform of the Law Work. Worst of the Biagi reform, intervention in favor of the precariousness of the abolition of the escalator. The worst of all time. This Government has never made any secret of not tolerate the intrusion of the judiciary in its work and has always seen as a hindrance to his business judges. And this corporate mentality that has drawn the political trajectory since the beginning of the majority today reaches its climax with this aberrant and uncivil reform.
work without justice. What is it? The bill introduces a "possibility" which is for the parties to enter into individual contracts of employment an agreement "arbitration" under which, in the case of labor disputes, you can not apply to a judge for the resolution of the dispute but to an arbitration. E 'precluded, ie, the possibility of appeal to the Court for all workers who accept this clause. We know that even those few who realize the existence of this clause and, among these, those few who understand the significance, will be forced to accept it because the signature on that paper is equivalent to a salary and thus an income. So we're talking about a reform that will cover all of them being expected for the current contracts will give rise to a campaign to join the new model contract at all levels.
What are the repercussions on the already fragile system of our legal system is easy to understand employment law. What has always been the weakest part of the employment relationship and that the employee will be placed in a position to accept any harassment always simply because even though theoretically a remedy provided by law, the Civil Code, the Collective Labour Contract, this not be operated within the terms that we have known until now that is using a full-blown legal proceedings. To act must be applied to the arbitrators. Who are these arbitrators?
Paragraph 1 of art. 31 of the bill makes the attempt at conciliation at the local Labour no longer mandatory but optional. The second paragraph of Article 9. 31 of the reform (the text of the Senate) says "the parties may agree contractual arbitration clause in Article 808 of the Code of Civil Procedure that refer to how to proceed by arbitration under Articles 412 and 412-quater of the Code of Procedure civil, if only so provides interconfederal agreements or collective bargaining agreements concluded by the organizations of employers and workers comparatively representative at national level. The arbitration clause, on pain of nullity, must be certified in accordance with the provisions of Title VIII of Legislative Decree 10 September 2003, No 276, by the certification bodies di cui all’articolo 76 del medesimo decreto legislativo, e successive modificazioni. Le commissioni di certificazione accertano la effettiva volontà delle parti di devolvere ad arbitri le controversie che dovessero insorgere in relazione al rapporto di lavoro. In assenza dei predetti accordi interconfederali o contratti collettivi, trascorsi dodici mesi dalla data di entrata in vigore della presente legge, il Ministro del lavoro e delle politiche sociali definisce con proprio decreto, sentite le parti sociali, le modalità di attuazione e di piena operatività delle disposizioni di cui al presente comma.”. Quindi, come abbiamo detto, le parti contrattuali in teoria “possono” ma in pratica pattuiranno “sicuramente” le compomissorie clauses that will be valid only if it is provided (and will always be foreseen) by agreements or interconfederal Negotiable. The fees for certification, then, always make sure and still the parties' intention to donate the dispute to arbitration. And then the worker is no longer a judge to be approached, to which a court to decide his fate. His fate is in the hands of the arbitrators. But who the hell are these arbitrators? Soon we arrive. Here
paragraph of Article 10. 31 "The certification bodies referred to in Article 76 of Legislative Decree 10 September 2003, No 276, as amended, may establish clearing houses for the definition under Article 808-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure, disputes on matters referred to in Article 409 of the Code and Article 63, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree 30 March 2001, No 165. The commission referred to in that Article 76 of Legislative Decree No 276 of 2003, as amended, may enter into agreements with the constitution which provide for arbitration chamber unit. Shall apply, mutatis mutandis, Article 412, third and fourth paragraphs of the Code of Civil Procedure.. "
So Let's see this art. 76 of the Biagi reform entitled "certification bodies"
"1. The bodies authorized to certify the employment contracts of the Boards of Certification established at:
a) bilateral bodies formed within the territorial reference to the level where the national certification committee is constituted under a bilateral organizations nationally;
b) the Provincial Directorates of Labour and the provinces , as determined by special decree of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy within sixty days from the entry into force of this decree;
c) the public and private universities, including university foundations, registered in the 'referred to in paragraph 2 exclusively in collaboration and consultation with teachers enabled the role of labor law under Article 66 Decree of the President July 11, 1980, No 382.
2. In order to qualify for certification under subsection 1, the universities are required to register with the appropriate register maintained by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy by special decree of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy in consultation with the Minister for Education of universities and research. To obtain registration, the universities are required to submit, at registration and every six months, studies and case law developed with indicators and criteria for qualification of labor contracts with respect to types of work specified by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy .
3. The committees established under the preceding paragraphs may enter into agreements with stipulating the establishment of a unified certification committee. "
Well, so we know who will end up in the clutches of the workers, who will ask" justice " disputes with employers. You, I imagine, at this point you're wondering: it fits the local Labour Office, the University is fine but what are the "BILATERAL BODIES? Presto said authorities are derived from a contract, as established and incorporated, by agreement between the social partners (trade unions of employers and trade unions of workers), in collective agreements Nazionali di Lavoro. Sono CGIL, CISL, UIL, CONFINDUSTRIA, CONFARTIGIANATO, etc. etc... Sono i sindacati dei lavoratori comparativamente più rappresentativi e le associazioni di categoria dei datori di lavoro. Ecco cosa sono. Ecco chi giudicherà. Ecco chi si sostituirà ai Giudici.
L'arbitrato funziona quasi come un giudizio vero e proprio perché dinanzi agli arbitri, che a differenza dei Giudici vanno pagati (e anche prima di iniziare l'arbitrato), si svolge l'istruttoria e, alla fine, i medesimi pronunciano una decisione che si chiama “lodo”. Il famoso “lodo arbitrale”. Ma perché questa novità, perché questo incredibile cambiamento? E a chi giova? Chi ci guadagna and who loses?
I can begin to answer these challenging questions by saying that if the reform passes (and the fact that the trust will be given passes for sure) we can safely give up fight for rights because those rights no longer have the legs. Have you noticed that you are no longer established art. 18 of the Statute of workers, you are no longer intervene in the labor market with rules that favor further (even worse because of it ...) the flexibility and precariousness, not rights that are threatened with residues from the struggles of the years 60 and 70. No. He dug around until you conceive this evil reform, sly as silent. Yes is taken away from workers the right to act in the protection of those rights which is even worse. This certainly will weaken even more the bargaining power of workers by increasing pressure from employers who can squeeze even more provisions to the workforce without fear of consequences. Yes, because in that case the owner does not speak with an independent and impartial judge, but with a mixed union members and friends of associates of the category with which it has learned in recent years to deal with the language of modulation, harmonization, consultation and the results are perfectly familiar with the workers. Here's who benefits the reform: the bosses and the unions representing more they get what they wanted: the complete management of employees, from recruitment to dismissal. This means that more will sign agreements and contracts containing arbitration clauses downward and then assist them in litigation against employers and, finally, to judge together with the latter under the joint and concerted cerchiobottista discretion.
If not, and then I will have absolutely apologize to all, the problem does not arise simply because the most representative trade unions at national level are refusing to enter the arbitration clause in collective agreements to make it inoperative and void this reform. But if this does not happen I guess I'm right.
Not to mention, then, that assist them will not necessarily be a lawyer because it will be just a union to represent them in arbitration. Someone has raised the question whether this will be a further reduction of the guarantees of the worker? I think not.
Finally I want to emphasize, before making a brief reference to the other reforms contained in the DDL, it is wholly inconceivable that no one outrage at this tragic scenario, in which very few talk about it and that there is no mobilization in this regard. This also answers the question: who benefits?
We come, finally, art. 1167-B 34 of the bill to the Senate that, in paragraph 5 states "5. Nei casi di conversione del contratto a tempo determinato, il giudice condanna il datore di lavoro al risarcimento del lavoratore stabilendo un’indennità onnicomprensiva nella misura compresa tra un minimo di 2,5 ed un massimo di 12 mensilità dell’ultima retribuzione globale di fatto, avuto riguardo ai criteri indicati nell’articolo 8 della legge 15 luglio 1966, n. 604.”. In breve, significa che se il contratto a termine è nullo e cioè deve essere convertito in contratto a tempo indeterminato, il Giudice non potrà condannare il datore di lavoro ad un risarcimento superiore a 12 mensilità anche nel caso in cui, ad esempio, la causa finisca due anni dopo l'estinzione dichiarata conseguentemente inefficace del rapporti work. Needless to remind everyone that this as a noma, previously proposed, was declared unconstitutional and is now being re-inserted in a legislative text.
What is clear, and that DDL is full of references to such limitations, it is the intention of the Government to remove the judge any power in regard to staff management by companies and then subtract the right to justice work then, with the consent of the unions, simply disappears. There is no more. We return to fascism with the rooms of the corporations that decide on workers. At least completed the work and introducing the rest of Saturday fascist, at least, workers would gain something.
What is most worrying is the director of this line policy: everything which hinders the increase of profits must be eliminated. In this case, the justice with its ruling in favor of employees makes us lose time and money.
Let me just have one question for now and then I end up here, but if this reform does not take to the streets terrifying everyone, workers, students, pensioners, how absurd we are finding the country to live? I, frankly, a country so incredibly unfair and yet so absurdly quiet start to not take it anymore.
Marco Guercio (ex, it seems) labor lawyers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment