The Government Needs to Oversee the Restructuring of Brodosplit

Union leaders at Brodosplit today requested the Government to urgently intervene in overseeing the restructuring process of the company because, according to their claims, the majority of the articles in the employment contracts offered for signature contradict the provisions of the Labor Law, and some of their provisions encroach on the privacy of workers.

Therefore, the unions are seeking urgent assistance from the Government, otherwise they announce that they will turn to the European Commission or “take matters into their own hands.”

“It is evident that many laws of the Republic of Croatia are being violated by the proposed contracts. Therefore, we ask the ministers in the Government, who are participants in the privatization of Brodosplit, to control the restructuring process, to urgently intervene so that the process is conducted and completed in accordance with the regulations of the Republic of Croatia and in accordance with what has been negotiated with the European Commission (EC), otherwise we will be forced to turn to the European Commission or take matters into our own hands,” states the press release signed by the chief commissioner of the Union of Metalworkers of Croatia-Industrial Union (SMH-IS) in Brodosplit, Joško Franić, the president of the Workers’ Union in the company, Ivan Čavka, and the vice president of the Independent Union of Brodosplit, Pavle Matošić.

At the end of February this year, the privatization contract for Brodosplit, under which the Samobor-based DIV of Tomislav Debeljak became the owner of the Split shipyard, was signed on behalf of the Government by the Minister of Economy Ivan Vrdoljak, on behalf of DIV Brodogradnje d.o.o. by the CEO Tomislav Debeljak, and on behalf of the company DIV d.o.o. by the board member Darko Papo.

The unions operating in Brodosplit state that they are disappointed with the actions of the new owner of Brodosplit, who “despite the agreement that he would deliver the proposals for employment contracts he intends to conclude with the workers a few days in advance for the unions to review, has not done so but conditions the workers to sign the employment contracts immediately on the spot without the possibility of consulting about the content and rights with lawyers or unions.”

The recommendation of the unions to the workers of Brodosplit is not to sign the offered contracts because otherwise, they will create problems for themselves even at the application stage, especially if the contract is terminated, emphasize the leaders of the three unions operating in the Split shipyard.

They note that the employment contract is a bilateral act, one side offering jobs and the other accepting those jobs along with negotiating the salary for that work, and it should precisely state the place of work, job title, and a brief description of the tasks the worker will perform. This has been avoided, but all possible penalties have been listed if the worker fails to do something. Although the mandatory content of the employment contract includes the basic salary, salary supplements, and the period of payment of benefits, this has not been stated, but the employer refers to the Work Regulations and the Salary Regulations as well as other acts of the employer, which are questionable, all under the guise of Brodosplit d.d., it is warned in the press release.

Union representatives also emphasize that it is an open question whether the employer has legally adopted the work regulations and salary regulations for the entire range of companies he has established within Brodosplit, or whether he should have adopted them under conditions when employing less than 20 workers? “If he has not adopted the acts, then he has deceived the workers because he refers to salary and material rights determined by those acts, to a greater number of days of annual leave, etc., to non-existent acts,” it is emphasized in the unionists’ press release.

It is also warned that the collective agreement on the rights and obligations of workers and employers when concluding employment contracts “is not mentioned anywhere.”

In addition, for workers of Brodosplit, who have many years of work experience, regardless of the type of offered contract, a probationary period is agreed upon for a maximum duration of six months for each worker, which is an abuse of the probationary work institute, as it is customary to agree on it only with a worker who has never worked in the same or similar jobs, states the press release.

Although the unions, as stated in the press release, reported to the competent authorities about illegal surveys being conducted and data on workers is still being collected, it is stipulated in the employment contract that “they must report to the employer if someone from their extended or immediate family is employed with the employer.”

Union leaders of Brodosplit note that workers are particularly revolted by the article in the employment contract which stipulates that after termination, the worker may not be employed by another employer for two years, as they will incur “a penalty of six salaries.”