Further answers from the works council
Once again Intel’s inglorious works council doesn’t miss the opportunity to be loyal to the company. Read how.
In my previous page June/July 2018, further official warnings I have explained how the company is trying to gain more points in the view of a possible showdown. They have given 2 official warnings (Abmahnung) on fake allegations.
After each warning I wrote to the works council, reporting the improper use of the warnings.
As already written in the previous post I didn’t get any answer to the complaint about the first warning.
On the contrary, I got answers for the second. And what answers!
The answer comes from works council chairman HH. First, he reprises me because I didn’t talk in the meeting where they handed over the warning to me. I answered that was useless, considering the people who were in the meeting (manager TM, HR employee MTR and works council chairman HH).
Mister HH ask for evidence that the warning is unfounded.
As main evidence, I’ve shown the difference between the request to enter the result in the Excel file (what I did) and the claim in the warning that I should have entered in 5 different entries (what was never asked).
The chairman of the works council HH comes back to me after some days saying that they decided the behavior of the company is correct.
He explains that it’s the task of the manager to decide how the job must be performed. It is evident, they ignored the main point: what is written in the warning is not true, the manager didn’t ask to make the work as described in the warning.
Meanwhile you have understood it, I don’t give up so easily!
I ask him to clarify on which considerations is the decision of the works council based. I ask if they took into consideration my evidence showing the difference between the request and what’s written in the warning. Or if they just ignored it, as it appears in their answer.
He doesn’t answer immediately, I had to push him to get an answer.
Finally, he answers my email but again doesn’t answer my question. Just generic “blah blah blah” in the evident hope I stop questioning.
I ask again. I push him to explain what argumentation do they found to consider correct a warning which claim are evidently false.
Chairman HH refuses to answer my question, he wrote he cannot tells which arguments they found against my bulletproof evidence.
He cannot write why they think Intel behaved correctly?!? Really?!? They must be really shameful arguments if he cannot write about, maybe it has something to do with zoophilia?!?
You probably have the same doubt in mind, what did they have to hide?
He additionally wrote that he talked with manager TM that explained to him how the Excel entries are done. Manager TM ensured mister HH, impeccable chairman of Intel’s works council, that everything was done correctly.
Works council HH must be very annoyed by my questions, so he closes his (not) answers saying that this is the last thing he has to say on the topic.