THE EDUCATION COUNSELOR DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AIDMUR AS A WINNER OF THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT ON SUMMER PAYMENT.
On the morning of this Monday there was, finally, a meeting of AIDMUR with the Minister of Education in order to receive the clarifications we have requested on how to execute the historic sentence
won by this association in the Supreme Court, and that proclaims the fraud and illegality committed by the Ministry of Education about the payment of the summer to the interns. A sentence, in addition, with effects on all the state territory and that puts in evidence the fraudulent and shameful practices of an administration that cut the rights of the teachers.
A meeting that AIDMUR has insistently requested since the publication of a ruling in which AIDMUR is the only appellant, and that was released on June 11. Despite this, Adela Martínez Cachá has refused to receive us until today.
This circumstance must be taken into account because on July 6 a sudden and disconcerting agreement signed with the trade union organizations was made public, which establishes a confusing timetable for the execution of the sentence, without taking into account this association, and leaving the air the execution procedure and its own effectiveness.
From AIDMUR we value negatively the meeting this morning as the counselor has not cleared any of our doubts and by a dry, distant and unpleasant tone, very far from the first promises of understanding and dialogue of a counselor who today did not want to recognize AIDMUR as the winner of this process, which is incomprehensible from the point of view of logic, good forms and what is expressed by justice.
In this regard, the counselor has stated that it does not recognize AIDMUR as the winning party, despite the fact that we are the only appellant before the contentious court of the Supreme Court, for which it will not comply with the agreement signed with the unions on July 6. , whose section 2 establishes a payment priority order before the end of 2018, placing AIDMUR associates first. The reason is that the literal wording of the agreement establishes, as first to collect all the perceptions, «the appellants who went to the Chamber and have won the ruling.»
We have tried to explain to the counselor the literal scope of what
she herself has signed, but we have faced confusing and inaccurate explanations, hiding in alleged reports from the legal services of the Ministry that, of course, we asked for months ago and they have not been sent to us. To this he added, surprisingly, that there are «other parties that have won the trial», of which no one has proof and, furthermore, no relevance has, since the agreement signed with the unions makes express reference to the
sentence won by AIDMUR.
We have also wanted to inquire about the procedure that this Department will implement to identify and pay the beneficiaries, since Adela Martínez has assured us that she «has a list». We wanted to know what list it is, who they are and how many they are, and again they have given us confusing explanations and excuses and they have shielded themselves
in your legal services.
As usual at AIDMUR, we have come up with a proposal to implement a judgment enforcement system that would allow the amounts owed to be paid without violating data protection rights and freedom of association and association, since we understand that an administration does not have why receive lists of people affiliated with or associated with unions or associations. However, the counselor has rejected our offer, ruling out that the members of AIDMUR
they can charge in the first place, even though that is precisely what the Agreement signed with the unions indicates.
In addition, we were surprised that the Minister of Education accused the entire union organizations of refusing to allow AIDMUR to be present at the negotiation of the agreement. According to Adela Martínez, the unions maintain that AIDMUR does not have any legitimacy of representation, even though it is AIDMUR who wins the sentence, exclusively.
Regrettably, this has been the content of a meeting that arrives late and poorly, with confusing explanations, accusations against the unions and the denial of the evidence that AIDMUR is the only appellant before the Supreme Court, which is clear from an easy reading of a historical sentence, which makes the counselor herself deslegitime the same
Agreement that she has signed, which will make AIDMUR study the possible legal actions, both for the breach and for if there were other types of more serious implications for a possible arbitrary and voluntary non-compliance.