A NEW SITE FOR TYPICAL NON-INFORMATION

After analyzing the elf-ep-performance site, we must make the following comments:

Historical Record

• Important damages during the night of April 12 to April 13

• The so-called important damages (elsewhere called "heavy " damages) were exhaustively listed by the Company’s lawyer at court: a torn away mouse cable, a split printer cover, a stripped electric wire, ... in a building worth several milliard Francs.
• Damaging, for whatever reason, must of course be blamed and so was by the Unions.
• Perpetrators are still unknown. All assumptions can be made, including, as suggested by our lawyer, Mr Blanco, instigators sent by the Management.

• Mea culpa
  
  We were mistaken when saying that the historical record did not treat April 15 to June 3. That period of time, however, is not easy to track because of ergonomic approximations. Many thanks to the reader who pinpointed our mistake.

The News

• June 29, 1999 – Paris - Pau – Informative documents sent to the employees’ private addresses
  In order to satisfy the employees’ expectations and to answer their many questions, the Management decided to inform the personnel by sending to their private addresses the Performance-Review proposed responses, that had previously been presented to the Unions.
  Today in Pau, at the ordinary C.E. (Comité d’Etablissement) meeting, this initiative was interpreted by two of the Unions as a moral stress put on the employees’ families and as a clear violation of the rights of the legal instances.
  We are obliged to note that certain Unions do not approve of a wide information to the personnel.
  
  The Unions had already presented the information contained in this document, and there was nothing new in it.
  We are obliged to note that the Management does not pursue a policy of wide information to the personnel.

• June 25, 1999 – Pau – The Unions present a counter-proposal
  All the day, the Unions expounded to the Management a synthetic report explaining the positions of the different unions. They submitted seven themes: Elf EP and its environment, the benchmark, Elf EP’s workload schedule, its future industrial prospects, its rates, the steering and support functions. The General Management suggested that these drafts be discussed in detail by workgroups consisting of Union's and Management's members.
  
  Let us make it clear that the speakers represented the five Unions and not only their owns. Does the Management consider that several contributors necessarily imply several opinions? Must we then understand that when both Mr Thébault and Mr Comtet speak, they defend two different opinions?

• June 25, 1999 – Pau – The Employees send a letter to the Unions
  
  No! Some employees did. "The employees" would mean all the employees. "Some employees" means only part of them.

• June 24, 1999 – Pau – Meeting of the Unions
  The Unions announced yesterday that they would hold a meeting today in order to try to lay down a common position. They are also preparing the presentation of their counter-proposal to the General Management to begin Friday morning.
  
  Let us make it clear that the Unions did not meet in order to try to lay down, but in order to lay down, a common position. At the very most, one can say that they did not succeed.

• Paris la Défense - Some strikers cut off communications with subsidiaries
  "... Elf EP’s Management could not discuss illegal sitting-in conditions."
  
  As far as illegality of the sitting-in is concerned, let us not forget the "Référé" judgement (Référé = emergency interim proceedings) of the Pau Court of Justice following the Management’s request to evacuate the Alpha building. This judgement says, among others: "the ‘obviously illicit’ disorder the plaintiff might complain about does not appear clearly, unless we challenge the right to strike."
  
  We could also say that the Management can, but does not want to, discuss the sitting-in conditions, and it is anyway perfectly entitled to do so. Of course this was not a great matter of interest, but accurate vocabulary can only improve the quality of a dialogue.

• Acts of brutality at the June 17 general meeting
  
  A few objective comments:

• The meeting was not for the whole personnel but for strikers only.
• The ambience was not rough before, but during, the incident.
• The contradicting striker tried to, and did, speak.
• He was not muzzled or pulled aside while coming to the microphone, but after delivering a short speech.
• About the so-called assault against the Head of the Safety/Security Dept, see the rectification by the Unions.
• The contradicting striker/speaker was then taken to the sick-room, because of his psychological state.

• Petty thefts and damages in the office of the Site Manager (June 3)
  As André Thébault (in charge of applying the " Performance Elf EP Review ") says: "saying is not proving".

• Strike statistics
  Are the strike statistics calculated on the basis of the total number of employees, or of employees present every day (i.e. taking or not into account days off, sick days, missions, etc.)? The Unions have no means at their disposal that would allow them to calculate such statistics. They would thus be grateful to the Management to precise how this was done.
  We must also remember that, as the clocking devices are out of operation, rolls are filled in by hand. Such surveys are likely to contain errors, and a three significant figure precision (equivalent to two people) is thus very surprising.
  
  On June 30, the statistics of week 23 (June 7 to 11) and following were not yet published. Is this because of our comments about precision? Is the Management having its "striker-counter" calibrated by the official measurement-instrument controlling agency?

Performance Elf EP - An opportunity for the Pau region

About activity transfer, "long-lasting agreements (7 to 10 years being common practice) ..." are mentioned. We must precise the following points: in such agreements, the practice is effectively to guarantee a minimum volume of activity, that is to say of employment, for a duration of 7 to 10 years, but the warranty to the transferred personnel is only 18 months to 2 years. This is not quite the same.

Gag: concerning Airbus, must we remind you that Toulouse is not in the Pyrénées Atlantiques?

Roots of wrath

July 2, 1999

On July 2, 1999, the "Contentieux" page contains only the following message:

The three legal actions of the first half-year are over.
We have not heard of any outstanding proceedings so far.

Remember that two of these actions were lost and the third one postponed by the Management.

Comments about the previous contents of the "Contentieux" pages

• 1 - "Référé" proceedings for non communication of documents that should have been given to the Unions. These documents had been asked for as soon as February 15, then on March 15 and again on April 6. They were delivered only on May 19.
  
  Here is a passage translated form the Management’s report:
  "Against the CCE’s (the workers legal instances) claim, Elf EP is not condemned. According to the provisions of Art. 700 of the new common law, Elf EP shall pay to the CCE 10,000 FF which are legally intended to cover the proceedings expenses."
  
  We firmly advise our readers to go to the "Référé" judgement.
  
  The judgment actually states that each party claimed 10,000 FF from the other party according to the provisions of Art. 700, and clearly says " Elf EP is condemned to pay 10,000 FF to the moving party (the C.C.E.) as provided under Art. 700 of the new common law; Elf EP is (also) condemned to pay the proceedings.". This is not ambiguous, Elf EP was CONDEMNED.

  Moreover, the court recognizes that this action in law was justified : "(It) is evident that this action was not vain ... ". And actually some of the documents (several hundred pages) were only given after the action had been brought.

• 2 - "Référé action brought by the Management against the occupation of the Alpha building in Pau, and the ELF Tower in Paris"
  A few details about the judgement:

• This action concerned only the Alpha building, not the ELF Tower. It seems that the Management does not know its own legal actions.
• No mention is made of the condemnation to pay 6000 FF to the 19 summoned strikers, or the 5000 FF to be paid to one of the Unions.

As a reminder, the judgement says: "… Its (the Management's) action cannot find any justification other than the impossibility to take profit of the work of the employees on strike, and not an alleged concern about the preservation of tools for which the future it has in store is very doubtful."

• 3 - Serious incidents on May 7: "Computer mice, or mice elements, were stolen, making the computers out of work"
  Here are a few details:

• What actually happened is that rumors of troubles at the gates made non-strikers run away, then theballs were removed from their computer mice. Looks more like a joke than a serious incident, doesn't it!
• The balls taken on Friday afternoon, May 7, were given back on Monday 10, early in the morning.
• No proof is made of any mouse actually stolen.
• You can always use your computer without any mouse: try the keyboard!

Press review

• June 24. For the last few days, the Press Review has been entirely reworked. On June 24, 1999 it mentioned five articles from L'Eclair des Pyrénées (June 4, 9, 10, 16) and one from Sud-Ouest (June 10). May we point out that several dozens of articles were published about Elf in June?
• July 2, 1999. The Press Review (one page only) still does not mentions any other diaries than L'Eclair des Pyrénées (June 10, 16, 19) and Sud-Ouest (June 23). No comments!

Other companies

July 2, 1999. May we point out a wrong link on this page? Since the site was created (approximately one month), we read the following message:

HTTP Error 404
404 Not Found
The Web server cannot find the file or script you asked for. Please check the URL to ensure that the path is correct.
Please contact the server's administrator if this problem persists.

This text gives us a deep feeling of anguish (are these other companies our "rescuers"?)

July 5, 1999. The link was repared on the day that followed the above remark. Was it a coincidence? If not we expect to receive our colleague's thanks.