THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION and DISCRIMINATION:

Using the fox to guard the geese!

Shortly before joining the European Union (EU), the Swedish Government introduced new labour relations legislation into their public service.

This legislation permits discrimination and prevents the judicial system from stopping it. The old principle 'the same salary for the same work' was simultaneously abolished. The new system is called <the individual salary system> and is no ordinary system of individual salary determination like those in the public services systems or private companies in other countries.

In Sweden today, the individual salary system means in reality that the salaries of the individual employees are arbitrarily decreed by the heads of the authorities in which the individual employees work. Under the new system, employees of foreign origin, women, and those who have fallen out of favour for reasons other than work have become the first victims of this discrimination. They suffer an underpayment of about 30% compared with their colleagues in the same position at the same place. These salary decreases have turned out to be an excellent way of punishing and intimidating anyone in the public service.

Salaries are now determined unilaterally without negotiation with the employees concerned and reasons are not given for the decisions. The employers in the public service refuse to enter into any negotiation about the determination of the salaries and keep the reasons for their discrimination secret. There are no contracts with the employees and - if the arbitrariness is approved by Government decisions - judicial control of the discrimination is not permitted.

Mr Allan LARSSON, as the former Swedish Minister of Finance and former President of the Swedish Labour Market Authority is one of the politicians who created this new order of Labour Law. In 1995, when Sweden joined the EU, he was appointed Director General in the European Commission and is thus the most influential bureaucrat of the European Commission with respect to Labour Law. Unfortunately, he is now expected to implement <his> Swedish Model through the entire European Union. There are already several indications of his attempts:

The new Swedish Labour Law, which encourages discrimination by the State of both citizens of other Union States and of women, clearly violates a number of provisions of the Treaty of Rome, a series of Directives of the EU-Commission and several judgements of the European Court of Justice.

In manifold publications, the EU-Commission presents itself as the guardian of European Community Law. Consequently, since 1 March 1995, the guiding complaint against the Swedish Government for this violation of Community Law has been brought before the European Commission. In a 12-page document those provisions of Community Law which are violated by this salary discrimination are listed.

Concerning salary discrimination in Sweden, a reference is made to a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (Gustafsson v Sweden, 26 April 1996). The complaint especially refers to the repeated Directives of the Commission and to judgements of the Court in Luxembourg according to which the Contracting States are obliged to provide discriminated employees with judicial remedies.

After 30 years of service, as a German academic teacher of Chemistry at the Swedish University of Lund, I was victimised through this Swedish system of salary discrimination. The administration fixed my salary at a 30-35% lower level than those of my colleagues who had considerably less qualifications and experience.

What are the real reasons for the discrimination? The increasing Swedish xenophobia together with my dissenting opinions on human rights are likely to be the real grounds for this discrimination. However, as a precaution, the administration refused to give any reasons for the discrimination and I was denied any opportunity for negotiation. In my complaint to the Swedish Government (which was ultimately responsible, since academic teachers are actually de jure civil servants in Sweden) as the competent forum for appeals in such cases, I referred to European Community Law.

However, it transpired that the (repeated) decisions of the Swedish Government to defy European Community Labour Law cannot be appealed against in Sweden because that is not allowed under Swedish Constitutional Law. Therefore, the complaint was addressed to the European Commission.

The European Commission delayed replying to the complaint and - against its own rules - omitted to issue an acknowledgement of receipt. After a year, two subordinate bureaucrats on 6 February and 9 April 1996 wrote two confusing letters and stated without reasons or arguments that the salary discrimination did not violate (European) Community Law. Then, a year later, in a revelationary letter dated 21 April 1997, the above-mentioned director-general Mr Allan LARSSON declared these letters as his!

The representation of the European Commission in Denmark discovered on 16 August 1996 that the Commission in these letters had used false file numbers and that the case had thus been made invisible. As the Commission had not confirmed the receipt, the complaint was not even registered at the Commission.

It is very probable, that even the submitted documentary proof had been made invisible.

In my letter of 1 September 1996 to the President of the European Commission, Mr Jacques SANTER, I as the plaintiff claimed an investigation of these attempts of concealment. I wrote: <The Directorate General V appears to be responsible for the treatment of the complaint. There, Mr Allan LARSSON is active as Director General. As former Swedish Minister, he is sharing the responsibility for the introduction of the discrimination in the Public Service.>

Because of this maladministration in the European Commission, the euro-MEP Per GAHRTON (The Greens) made an interpellation in the European Parliament. Commissioner Padraig FLYNN answered on 4 April 1997: <The Commission informs the Member of Parliament that the complaint he refers to is subject to a fundamental investigation> (P-0854/97SV).

This promised <fundamental investigation> consists of - as it became apparent now - a letter 21 April 1997 by this very Mr Allan LARSSON, the former Swedish minister, on behalf of the Commission! He admits his liability for the confusing letters with false file numbers and consequently also the entire manoeuvre to delay and make the complaint invisible. He states that the salary discrimination is compatible with Community Law; he is, however, unable to give any reasons or proof. No investigation, what so ever, is reported. Why was he allowed to investigate and judge his own case?

In the light of these developments a revision of both European Community Law in labour relations and of the system of collective contracts within the entire European Union is expected, since the European Commission is already beginning to implement the new <Swedish Model> of Labour Law. Labour Unions, collective bargaining, and equal opportunities will all become history with this model.

REINHARD HELMERS

(copy of Allan Larsson's letter follows below):

---

Reinhard Helmers COPY

Lecturer

Thomanders väg 2 C

S 224 65 LUND/Sweden

8 March 1997

Tel.: Int.+ 46 46 127833

Fax: - dito -

E-Mail: Reinhard.Helmers@orgk1.lu.se

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Secrétariat Général

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Bruxelles

Complaint dated 16 November 1996 (1 March 1995)

concerning salary discrimination under the 'closed shop' principle

---

As an additional evidence to the previously submitted documents, the plaintiff invokes the Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, Gustafsson v.Sweden, 25 April 1996, in its applicable parts, namely paragraph 48.

When the plaintiff had referred to Community Law and claimed the Swedish Government as the supreme national and responsible authority to end the salary discrimination, the Government, by their repeated decisions, approved the discrimination. Justifyingly, they explained the discrimination to be a consequence of not being a member of the union.

In his still pending letter of complaint 1 March 1995 to the Commission, the plaintiff wrote under 'closed shop' discrimination inter alia on page 4 :

<In three cases the European Court of Justice stated that employees outside the union are discriminated by lacking the rights of the collective contract: Commission/Italy 91/81, 131/84 and Commission/Denmark 143/83.>

By its aforementioned judgement, the European Court of Human Rights made the same conclusion. It was based on a very own statement of the Swedish Government: The employees not being members of the union <could not benefit from the protection provided in important parts of the Swedish labour legislation.>

______________

By submitting his complaint to the Commission, the plaintiff relied on the protection against discrimination guaranteed by Community Law. He complains of an approx. 35% salary discrimination and the absence of reasons for this, the absence of a contract, the denied negotiation and the absence of judicial remedies against the Government decisions - a situation which is described by both European Courts and approved by the Swedish Government. These conditions permit any discrimination such as for being the citizen of another Union State. sign. R.HELMERS

----

The former Swedish minister Allan LARSSON wrote in the name of the Commission:

COPY

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General V

Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs

Directorate-General

The Director-General Brussels, 21.04.97 008521

D(97)

Mr R.Helmer

Thomanders vaeg 2 C

S-224 65 Lund

Dear Mr Helmers,

Thank you for your letter of 8th March 1997 and for your recent e-mails addressed to President Santer.

Further to my previous letters of 6th February 1996 and 9th April 1996, I can confirm that we have carefully examined your case and concluded that, at the present state of Community law, the questions you raise do not fall within the competence of the Community but rather within that of the Member States.

This being the case, I am afraid that there are no grounds for pursuing this matter further either through judicial process or through further administrative correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

sign. Allan LARSSON