Written by Director on November 12, 2012.
Workers in layoffs against union representatives within the company. This is the picture that emerges on the sidelines of the dispute that sees hundreds of Sigma Tau employees risk their jobs, after the presentation of the industrial plan by the Pometina pharmaceutical company at the end of October.
The definitive break is recent: on 8 November the "Committee for the protection of the IMS Sigma-Tau network", which brings together almost all the employees in CGIS, sent a warning to Sigma Tau and the company RSU, as well as to the national secretariats of all trade unions and to the Ministry of Labor and the Industrial Union, through which the illegitimacy of union representation is contested, as it has been lapsed for three years and not re-elected according to current regulations. But the warning launches very heavy accusations both at the company and at the RSU, based on the numbers provided regarding the mobility envisaged by Sigma Tau. "We follow up on the previous warning that remained unanswered - reads the document - in relation to the "RSU press release 06/11/2012", to distrust those gentlemen who continue to proclaim themselves "RSU" from following up on yet another impudent ballet, unfortunately already seen, which they are about to stage with the company management, destined to culminate with a new farce-agreement, to then be subjected to forced ratification by the assembly, so that the "saved" vote against the "doomed", that is precisely against those workers who would absurdly maintain the current condition of layoffs without rotation". "Gentlemen of the RSU - the signatories continue ironically - you cannot fail to know that what the Company has claimed to be preparing to do is blatantly illegitimate, and that it is reported passively in the aforementioned press release, namely that the mobility procedure would concern 378 employees, of whom 232 already in CIGS. The mobility procedure may and/or shall possibly concern all employees of the corporate complex, as required by art. 5, ln 223 of 1991. The game of the parties is all too evident, considering that this pseudo-RSU will pass off as a trade union victory having "convinced" the Company to do what it has already decided to do, and which has conveniently already been agreed upon: that is, to renounce the intentions of mobility and continue to keep the (surviving) workers suspended in layoffs without rotation
