SITE FILES
     
 
It is precisely defined in Article 49. of the UBU ‘’Nezavisnost’’ Statute that the UBU Statutory Committee states its opinion only on the basis of requests of trade union bodies or a group of members, and not at the individual request, even if it was submitted by Dragan Milovanovic – Pilac, who requested the investigating of responsibility and exclusion of Dragan Matic. ‘’Testis unus, testis nullus’’ (One witness as no witness at all), the old Latins used to say.

PILAC, AN ‘’ENORMOUS’’ MAN




Belgrade, May 25 2008
If by any chance the request for investigating the responsibility for alleged violation of the UBU Statute was filed by a group of members or some trade union body in which Dragan Milovanovic – Pilac was a member or president, the BU Media Presidency, the BU Media L.C., UBU Information Committee, everything would be, in procedural sense, in compliance with statutory regulations. However, the Statutory Committee, by making a decision to consider and discuss an individual request for establishing somebody’s responsibility, violated the Statute, because it made an exception from the statutory rule. Why was this farce made and what was the real motive to exclude D. Matic, president of MWBU ‘’Nezavisnost’’, from membership?

Would the UBU Statutory Committee have reacted in the same way when, by any chance, over 200.000 UBU members would send their complaints individually requesting opinion? We don’t believe. But, how did our esteemed colleague D. Milovanovic - Pilac succeed in convincing the UBU Statutory Committee to make an exception? It will be difficult for us to find out, but we only know that the esteemed colleague is the President of the Branch Union of the Media and one of the closest associates of B. Canak.

The second important procedural violation of UBU ‘’Nezavisnost’’ Statute was non-observance of Article 17. which defines the measure of exclusion of a member from trade union, namely, in which cases this measure can be pronounced (e.g. violation of the Statute, work against trade union’s interests and positions ..). But, all this has to be proved, because one’s OPINION is not the same as the PROOF.

The third important procedural omission and violation of the UBU Statute is non-observance of Article 18. which precisely describes the procedure of some member’s exclusion from membership. The decision on a member’s exclusion is obligatorily preceded by forming the INVESTIGATING COMMISSION. In this case the Investigating Commission that has to establish and verify the statements of (individual) complaint was not formed by the UBU, whereby the way to find out and establish the TRUTH was disabled. The Investigating Commission’s task, by the UBU Statute, is to gather the documentation and verify all the facts that can influence the decision on exclusion. Is additional comment necessary here?

As the directors of this entire farce had in hand ‘’strong evidence on uncertain ground’’, they omitted consistent observance and application of Articles 17. and 18. and very cunningly attended to application of Art. 20. of the UBU Statute, which is applied only exceptionally, i.e. in ‘’SPECIAL AND SERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THE UBU’’. So, a question is posed: Are the two newspaper texts deemed as exceptionally special and serious circumstances? Which UBU body announced such a serious situation? None. Therefore, is application of the procedure in such special circumstances – that don’t exist, LEGITIMATE, FAIR, CORRECT, HONEST? The answer is clear to everyone. Article 20. provides that the UBU L.C., based on previously obtained opinion of the Statutory Committee, can make a decision on AUTOMATIC EXCLUSION WITHOUT PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS! The president of MWBU ‘’Nezavisnost’’ was excluded from UBU ‘’Nezavisnost’’ membership, because of two newspaper texts, by application of Art. 20., in a situation that does not correspond to actual situation, in an undemocratic way, without establishing the facts and without proofs.

The issue of competence of the Statutory Committee on the media issues, namely, newspaper articles, has been especially imposed. How can people of the Statutory Committee that are not competent in this area (because no one of them is a journalist) make decisions on this competently? Wasn’t it logical that they formed an Investigating Commission or order the Informing Committee to give its expert judgment of all this, by virtue of Art. 41. of the UBU Statute.

 
     
 
 
 
 
Home About us Membership International Cooperation The media columnr Legal protection Forum Contacts
Copyright © Industrijski sindikat
designed by Canatlantic