POTENTIAL LITIGANTS now may SUE SHELL

Do you have

 grounds

 for a lawsuit

 against

 Shell?

Have you,

your firm or

family been

cheated or

 injured

by Shell?

Feb 9th, 2007

by admin.

If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, then you may find this article by John Donovan to be of interest…
The first difficulty faced by potential litigants considering suing Shell, is finding a law firm with the required resources which does not have a conflict of interest and is willing to confront an opponent quite literally prepared to stop at nothing.
In this connection we may be able to assist by providing introductions at law firms with a track record of winning cases against Shell, who may in some cases, be willing to work on a contingency fee basis.
The owners of this website have been participants in countless proceedings with Shell stretching back to 1993. We are currently involved in proceedings brought by EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group. A High Court hearing took place on 8 February 2007. The next is scheduled for 7 August.
Consequently, we know most Shell litigation moves including the use of:

* unscrupulous solicitors e.g. Kendall Freeman
* undercover activity
* witness intimidation
* threats
* jurisdiction ploys
* burying evidence
* tampering with evidence
* holding back discovery documents
* manipulating the news media
* hiding information about the litigation from Shell shareholders
* dragging out litigation to drain the resources of a weaker opponent

Basically nothing is too low for Shell.
Knowing that other parties have had the same problems dealing with Shell can help psychologically and also possibly strengthen a case by providing what is known as "similar fact evidence". This perhaps explains why one of Shell's first actions in responding to a case is to ask that the case be sealed, preventing the court documents and documents relating to discovery from reaching the public domain. Even where a case has been sealed, the initial petition is by definition in the public domain, since it was lodged with the court before the case was sealed. Shell does not want news of litigation to circulate in case it reaches the ears of another potential or actual litigant who might be able to supply or benefit from acquiring similar fact evidence.
It has therefore been suggested that we act as a repository of threatened or actual legal proceedings against Shell. This would enable us to compare cases to check for relevance to litigation already in our files and notify relevant parties accordingly, putting them into direct contact if both sides agree. In the event of a pattern of Shell conduct being revealed, perhaps even involving the same Shell individuals, it might enable the cases to proceed more expeditiously and potentially even persuade Shell to settle out of court rather than allowing predatory conduct to be exposed in open court.
Consequently, if you have a legal grievance against Shell you are invited to report it to us. If legal documents are already in the public domain we will, with your permission, publish them. If the information is confidential we will only share it with another party with a similar grievance if you give us clearance to do so.
There are a number of options available to convey information depending on the degree of confidentiality involved.
It can be sent directly to me at: john@shellnews.net
Or you can use a more secure form of transmission e.g. http://www.anonymousspeech.com/
The information will then be relayed to me at my email address.
Alternatively check out http://wikileaks.org/
You will shortly be able to post information and documents on this new facility designed to protect anonymity of documents. It is expected to become operational within a matter of weeks.  If this service is used, you would need to tip me off to check the wikileaks.org website by perhaps posting a message on our Live Chat box e.g. It might be worth a visit to wikileaks.org?
For information about the wikileaks.org service check out the Time Magazine link below.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581189,00.html
Our own experiences with Shell: At the beginning of our legal battles with Shell we knew nothing about such shady tactics but were well aware of the daunting challenge of taking on a multinational Goliath which has an army of in-house lawyers supported by unlimited financial resources and a ruthless unscrupulous management. We thought we were on our own in having to threaten ligation after a Shell manager stole our intellectual property. Then in a meeting I had with a Shell Chairman, he let it slip that other firms were also threatening to launch legal proceedings on the same basis about the same Shell national manager. In other words, the Shell manager in question had been accused of stealing ideas from other parties who, like us, had disclosed information on a confidential basis believing they could trust Shell. The then Shell Chairman, Dr Chris Fay, claimed that he could not agree to settle our claim because it would set a precedent. This was a major concern in view of the fact that other potential litigants were pressing Shell. Royal Dutch Shell did later did settle for £200,000 approximately $400,000.

Posted in: Shell.

MORE OF SHELL'S MISDEMEANORS

Royal Dutch Shell plc .com

News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Skip to Content ↓

• Home
• Contact Us
• Contributors
• Mission
• Shell Blog
• Shell Library

Shell Criticized

for Manipulating

Environmental

Audit Report

Sep 3rd, 2008

by John Donovan.

SEPTEMBER 2, 2008

Shell Criticized

for Manipulating

Environmental

 Audit Report

Shell is accused of manipulating an independent environmental audit by AEA Technology to determine whether an oil and gas project would receive bank funding, Guardian reports.
Dozens of e-mails secured through the Freedom of Information Act show how Shell officials in London attempted to downplay and edit environmental criticism of the $22 billion Sakhalin II energy scheme. Officials persuaded AEA to disperse its findings throughout the report, rather than leaving them in one appendix. Also downplayed were experts' concerns over the impacts of continuous noise on endangered whales, and questions about whether permits were sought before or after drilling began.
In addition, the AEA report lists Sakhalin Energy as its client, even though the audit was supposed to be independent.
In August, Shell was reprimanded by UK's Advertising Standards Authority for violating advertising rules when it claimed that two oil projects in Canada and the U.S. involved sustainable forms energy.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/09/02/shell-criticized-for-manipulating-environmental-audit-report/

Posted in: Environment, Oil, Wikipedia.

SHELL DISGRACE ONCE MORE

Shell Earns Top Rating in Human Rights Survey (another deception)

Sep 3rd, 2008

by John Donovan.

Shell Earns Top Rating in Human Rights Survey 
HOUSTON — Shell Oil Co. received top marks from the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) for its treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees and consumers.
CEI's annual survey, administered by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, awarded Shell a 100 percent rating. The oil company joins the ranks of 259 other major U.S. businesses also recognized for related practices and procedures.
"At Shell, we believe creating an inclusive workplace that brings out the very best from our employees is fundamental to our success," said Francene Young, vice president of diversity, inclusion and talent at Shell Oil Co.
Young noted Shell established a formal framework of principles and expectations for every Shell-controlled company. To this end, Shell companies are required to value the broad range of cultural and personal differences that exists in each. This initiative is supported by the company's pledge to attract develop, retain and promote diverse talent.
"It is extremely gratifying to have our commitment to diversity and inclusion recognized by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, in such a meaningful way," Young said in a statement.
http://www.csnews.com/csn/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003845140

Comment by John Donovan

This fabricated news story is being promoted by Shell Media without any declaration that the "award" comes from an organisation – the so called "Human Rights Campaign Foundation" – which receives funding from Shell. The lack of candour is a disgrace. The public, the media and Shell employees are once again being conned by the bunch of overpaid confidence tricksters at the top of Shell. 

Posted in: Shell.

SO YOU MAY KNOW

SEX, DRUGS & CORRUPTION

 SPONSORED BY SHELL

Oct 23rd, 2009

by John Donovan.

LEAFLET BEING DISTRIBUTED AT SHELL CENTRE, LONDON, WEEK COMMENCING 26 OCTOBER 2009.

SEX, DRUGS & CORRUPTION

SPONSORED BY SHELL

By John Donovan of royaldutchshellplc.com: October 2009

Shell senior management pretends that it stands resolutely behind the anti-corruption pledges in the Shell General Business Principles.

I have already revealed that the hypocrites at the top of Shell, including executive director Malcolm "TFA" Brinded and the rule bending Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, Richard Wiseman, encourage and support corrupt practices. Wiseman's behind the scenes support is directly at odds with an anti-corruption speech he delivered in June 2008 at the Asia Anti-Corruption Conference.

The stink of corruption associated with Shell is pervasive and impossible to contain. In the hard commercial world, Shell senior management is prepared to do whatever it takes to meet its objectives, whether it is turning a blind eye to corrupt practices in the UK, bribery and corruption in Russia (the Sakhalin2 project) or in Nigeria, where Shell has also paid militants carrying out attacks on Shell employees and property. It is unclear whether the murky payments, reported in the FT, were to stop or promote the attacks, which have driven up the price of oil.

We mentioned in a recent leaflet the criminal investigation currently in progress in Scotland involving Shell, Malcolm Brinded, the HSE and alleged corruption.

We now have the criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department into former U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton and the award of potentially highly lucrative oil shale leases to Shell Oil, which subsequently became her employer.

One moment Norton was the head of a U.S. government department negotiating multibillion-dollar agreements with Shell, the next (just months later) she was working for Shell Oil as General Counsel in the division dealing with oil shale. This was blatantly improper, undoubtedly against the public interest and probably illegal. It smells to high heaven.

In this connection, we are aware of speculation that we have supplied Shell internal documents and correspondence to the U.S. investigators. The speculation is understandable bearing in mind our international reputation as a purveyor of Shell confidential internal information. One example was our key role in the Sakhalin2 project resulting in Shell's loss of its ownership stake and the forced resignation, in embarrassing circumstances, of the project director, General David Greer.

I have been writing about Gale Norton for over a year. Not just out of concern over her joining Shell in highly dubious circumstances, but also because of a corruption scandal involving her staff. This scandal had it all; bribes, drugs, sex and oil. Shell was a prime sponsor of the immoral and illegal activities, which also breached Shell's claimed ethical code.

Further proof that Shell General Business Principles are a complete fraud.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of The Interior and the Office of Inspector General initiated an investigation in 2006 after receiving allegations from a confidential source that improprieties were occurring within the Royalty in Kind Program (RIK). The following extracts in italics, not necessarily in original order, are taken directly from the official report.

In e-mails we retrieved from computer hard drives and network servers, we found numerous indications that many of the events that RIK employees attended with industry officials were purely social. For instance, e-mail from Shell Pipeline Company representative to RIK employee Crystel Edler, regarding attending "tailgating festivities" at a Houston Texans game, stated, "You're invited have you and the girls meet at my place at 6am for bubble baths and final prep. Just kidding…"

The Shell Pipeline Company representative's previous e-mail inviting people to the event was laden with sexual innuendo such as, "We've always provided the patrons with beer on demand, but the ever-depleting supplies have dwindled beer storage to dangerously low volumes on occasion…. Although it's a given that the horsemen will indeed 'bring the meat to the table.'

In 2004, Shell provided Leyshon with lodging and paid for her ski costs in Keystone, CO. She also admitted to having a "one-night stand" with a Shell employee. She stated that this employee did not prepare Shell's RIK bids. Leyshon told investigators that she "had a hit every once in a while in reference to her use of marijuana but noted that this never occurred at the MMS office.

When interviewed, Michael Faulise, Director of Marketing for Shell Exploration and Production Company (Shell E&P), stated that he had worked for Shell since 2000… When asked, Faulise stated that he was unable to recall Leyshon ever paying for any lodging or meals provided by Shell.

We interviewed a senior crude oil trader for Shell Oil Trading Company regarding his relationship with Stacy Leyshon pursuant to a DOJ proffer agreement. The senior trader said he had heard Leyshon and Edler referred to by other Shell employees as the "MMS Chicks" who often drank too much and conducted themselves in an unprofessional manner.

In addition, our investigation disclosed that in 2004, Greg Smith became concerned that an RIK employee might have released confidential pipeline transportation rates to Shell. Apparently, a company official from Poseidon Oil had called Smith to complain that Shell had learned of the confidential transportation rate that Poseidon had negotiated with RIK. We also discovered emails sent among RIK Staff where Edler admitted to talking to "Mike" (Faulise) about the Poseidon deal. On May 6, 2004, Smith sent an e-mail to several RIK marketers including Edler that stated, "I have heard the details of our agreement with Poseidon … including the actual rate we agreed to … was communicated to Shell. If true, this ran counter to our promise to Poseidon to keep this information confidential."

Edler admitted that she had used cocaine "in the past," most recently in 2005. However, she claimed that she never used cocaine during business hours and that she never used cocaine with any MMS employees or industry representatives.

We interviewed Mike Faulise, Barbara Layer, and Alan Raymond of Shell, who all confirmed that Edler was an RIK employee they dealt with on both a professional and social basis. Both Faulise and Layer remembered her attending the annual Shell outings. During Faulise's interview, we showed him a February 2004 e-mail he wrote to Edler stating, "Nobody will say anything about you being here for the night. As far as I'm concerned, you were in a hotel." Edler responded, "Mikey:..you are sooo wonderful You know how much I totally adore you."

Shell managers used immoral tactics directed against employees of a U.S. government department to seek commercial advantage. This included obtaining confidential, commercially valuable information belonging to a third party. Déjà Vue All Over Again.
LEAFLET ENDS

Mission Statement by an International SHELL's Critiques

Dear Sen. Chiz,

Below is a mission statement by a group of critiques whose  experiences, beliefs, convictions and aspirations are exactly similar to mine.  They have searched and seen how SHELL conducts her business  in a worldwide perspective.  I  myself  in my own niche in TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY  witnessed , experienced and been a victim of the same coersive, corrupt, deceptive and inhumane  management  culture. The plague is not only confined in the fences of the refinery but also in the halls and hallways of  DOLE ,  the Judiciary and in a number of government offices and institutions.

I know that these revelations are not alien to you but maybe the venom that SHELL injected into our system

have paralyzed  our leaders' will to fight. I believe you are not among those who did not even resist and worse corraborated  with SHELL in the expense of the their own dying  people.

With pride Sen. Chiz,  I present to you their Mission Statement : xxx

         
Mission

royaldutchshellplc.com

is an entirely

non-commercial website
Our objectives are simple. We want Royal Dutch Shell executives to act at all times in accordance with Shell General Business Principles which include the claimed core principles of honesty, integrity, openness and respect for people in all of Shell's dealings.
This is surely not an unreasonable ambition given that the principles were devised by Shell, are promoted by Shell and are supposedly current and binding on all Shell operations everywhere. In other words, we are only asking Shell executives to do what they already claim to be doing.
The plain fact is that if Shell executives had abided with the SGBP, scandals such as the reserves fraud involving blatant deceit and cover-up, the preventable Brent Bravo deaths which flowed from the Shell "Touch F*** All" safety culture on North Sea Platforms, and the more recent PR humiliations arising from outrageous examples of greenwash advertising, could not have occurred.
We do not believe that it is morally acceptable that Shell executives are indemnified so that even if they cheat, deceive and cover-up serious misdeeds, treating shareholders and the public as gullible fools, they are still able to walk away as winners. In the case of Sir Philip Watts, with a severance package/pension pot reportedly worth $18.5 million USD. We think that this is disgraceful situation at odds with all ethical norms including the SGBP and will continue to say so on this website.
The SGBP is being been used as a PR tool to promote undeserved confidence in the scruples and honesty of Shell senior management. For example, the SGBP featured in the Form 20F Declarations filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission thereby generating confidence in the proven reserves volumes which had been inflated i.e. were false.
While Shell execs continue to make pledges of ethical trading which they flout, we will continue our humble efforts to expose their hypocrisy and we welcome the support of others who like us are not prepared to put up with such deception.
The gap between Shell rhetoric and reality is evidence from Shell's appalling track record including a leadership role in price fixing cartels, numerous Clean Air Act violations, repeated environmental infringements, multimillion dollar fines for groundwater contamination, more fines for unauthorised venting and flaring of gas. We also have to add to this litany, Shell's exploitation and reckless disregard of the safety of its employees: xxx

Regards,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

 

 

SHELL as SEEN by Others' EYES

Dear Sen. Chiz,

May I show you some salient points that it is not only my
co-workers in TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY and
myself  been victims of  SHELL's  ridiculous and anomalous
management philosopy.
Please see my research bounty today.

In the wake

of Shell

"lies corruption,

despoliation

and death":

Andrew Rowell

in his

remarkable article

"Unloveable Shell,

the

Goddess of Oil"

Jun 5th, 2008

by John Donovan.

Unloveable Shell,

the Goddess of Oil

By John Donovan
In view of the overnight news from Nigeria it seems an appropriate time to publish for the first time on the Internet the most dramatic masterpiece about Shell and its atrocious track record, especially in Nigeria, that we have ever seen. Authored by Andrew Rowell, it was published by The Guardian over 10 years ago on 15 November 1997 under the title: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil
It is a large PDF file, so please be patient while it loads.
http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/Guardunlov15Nov1997-1.pdf
The following extract is from a stirring letter to the editor of The Guardian by Mark Moody-Stuart published in the Guardian newspaper in response to the article.
Moody-Stuart said:

"…the Statement provides, for our employees to follow and for the outside world to judge us by, an ethical framework which is mandatory, not optional… just having those principles is not enough. In the past… an oil company could say 'trust me' and expect that to be enough. Today, people say, 'tell me – listen to me – show me'. Trust has to be earned by transparency. That's one of the most important lesson's we've learned in Shell…"

It appears from the news that in fact Shell has not been listening.
Dr Huong, the Shell whistleblower being sued for defamation by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies, may wish to bring this article to the attention of the Trial Judge and ask why Shell did not sue Andrew Rowell or The Guardian for libel.
If anyone has a copy of the complete letter from Mark Moody-Stuart, we will happily publish it. The content was mentioned in correspondence I had with Moody-Stuart at the time.
Printed below is the text of the article (we do however recommend looking at the original article via the above link so that you can view the dramatic graphics)

The Guardian: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil
November 15, 1997
For a century, Shell has explored the Earth to make our lives more comfortable. But in its wake, says Andrew Rowell, lies corruption, despoliation and death
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh went to the Shell Centre on the Thames riverside near Waterloo last Tuesday, to crown the company's centenary celebrations. Critics claim the timing of the Queen's visit was slightly unfortunate: it came just one day after the second anniversary of Ken Saro-Wiwa's death in Nigeria: he was campaigning against Shell's oil exploitation in the region.
The Shell Transport and Trading Company (STTC) has risen from its humble roots in a cramped office in the East End to become one of the most successful corporations of the century. What we collectively know as "Shell" is in fact more than 2,000 companies. Last year, the Shell Group's profit was a record pounds 5.7 billion, the proceeds from sales of pounds 110 billion. "Were our founder, Marcus Samuel, to reappear today, I do not think he would be displeased with what has grown from his efforts," says Mark Moody-Stuart, STTC's chairman.
As part of the centenary celebrations, the cream of the City were invited to a reception at the Guildhall. There is also to be a commemorative book. Whilst it may mention the Shell Better Britain Campaign, and even the controversy over Brent Spar, not everyone will agree with the authorised biography's version of Shell's history. Here is a less authorised approach.
After it merged in 1907 with its rival Royal Dutch, the Royal Dutch Shell company was formed; its first chairman was the Dutchman Henri Deterding. By the 1930s, Deterding had become infatuated with Adolf Hitler, and began secret negotiations with the German military to provide a year's supply of oil on credit. In 1936, he was forced to resign over his Nazi sympathies.
During the early 1940s, as the world waged war, Peru and Ecuador had their own armed border-dispute – over oil. Legend in Latin America says that it was really a power struggle between Shell, based in Ecuador, and Standard Oil in Peru. The company left a lasting reminder of its presence in the country: a town called Shell. Activists in Ecuador are seeking to get the town renamed Saro-Wiwa.
In the post-war years, Shell manufactured pesticides and herbicides on a site previously used by the US military to make nerve gas at Rocky Mountain near Denver. By 1960 a game warden from the Colorado Department of Fish and Game had documented abnormal behaviour in the local wildlife, and took his concerns to Shell, who replied: "That's just the cost of doing business if we are killing a few birds out there. As far as we are concerned, this situation is all right."
But the truth was different. "By 1956 Shell knew it had a major problem on its hands," recalled Adam Raphael in the Observer in 1993. "It was the company's policy to collect all duck and animal carcasses in order to hide them before scheduled visits by inspectors from the Colorado Department of Fish and Game." After operations ceased in 1982, the site was among the most contaminated places on the planet, although Shell is now trying to make it into a nature reserve.
At Rocky Mountain, Shell produced three highly toxic and persistent pesticides called the "drins": aldrin, dieldrin and endrin. Despite four decades of warning over their use, starting in the 1950s, Shell only stopped production of endrin in 1982, of dieldrin in 1987 and aldrin in 1990, and only ceased sales of the three in 1991. Even after production was stopped, stocks of drins were shipped to the Third World.
Another chemical Shell began manufacturing in the 1950s was DBCP, or 1,2 -Dibromo-3-Chloropropane, which was used to spray bananas. This was banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 for causing sterility in workers. In 1990, Costa Rican workers who had become sterile from working with the chemical sued Shell and two other companies in the Texan Courts. Shell denied that it ever exported the chemical to Costa Rica and denied that it exported it to any other country after the ban in 1977. The case was settled out of court.
Just as people had begun to question Shell's products, so they began to challenge its practices. In the 1970s and 1980s, Shell was accused of breaking the UN oil boycott of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) by using its South African subsidiary and other companies in which it had interests. Shell, singled out by anti-apartheid campaigners for providing fuel to the notoriously brutal South African army and police, responded by hiring a PR firm to run an anti-boycott campaign.
By the 1980s criticism of Shell's operations was spreading. From Inuit in Canada and Alaska, to Aborigines in Australia and Indians in Brazil, indigenous communities were affected by Shell's operations.
In the Peruvian rainforest, where Shell conducted exploration activities, an estimated 100 hitherto uncontacted Nahua Indians died after catching diseases to which they had no immunity. Shell denies responsibility, and says that it was loggers who contacted the Nahua. By the end of the decade, the company's image was suffering in the US and UK, too.
In April 1988, 440,000 gallons of oil was discharged into San Francisco Bay from the company's Martinez refinery, killing hundreds of birds. The following year, Shell spilt 150 tons of thick crude into the River Mersey, and was fined a record pounds 1 million.
But by now, the company was responding to growing international environmental awareness. "The biggest challenge facing the energy industry is the global environment and global warming," said Sir John Collins, head of Shell UK, in 1990. "The possible consequences of man-made global warming are so worrying that concerted international action is clearly called for."
Shell joined the Global Climate Coalition, which has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to influence the UN climate negotiations that culminate in Kyoto next month. "There is no clear scientific consensus that man-induced climate change is happening now," the lobbyists maintain, two years after the world's leading scientists agreed that there was.
At the same time, the company has taken its own preventive action on climate change and possible sea-level rise by increasing the height of its Troll platform in the North Sea by one metre. By 1993, as Shell's spin-doctors were teaching budding executives that "ignorance gets corporations into trouble, arrogance keeps them there", 300,000 Ogoni peacefully protested against Shell's operations in Nigeria. Since then 2,000 have been butchered, and countless others raped and tortured by the Nigerian military.
In the summer of 1995 there was the outcry over the planned deep-sea sinking of the redundant oil platform Brent Spar, and in November Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed, having been framed by the Nigerian authorities. At the time Shell denied any financial relationship with the Nigerian military, but has since admitted paying them "field allowances" on occasion. This year in Nigeria, the three-million-strong Ijaw community started campaigning against Shell, leading to another military crackdown.
"The military governor says it is for the purpose of protecting the oil companies. The authorities can no longer afford to sit by and have the communities mobilise against the companies. It is Ogoni revisited," says Uche Onyeagucha, representing the opposition Democratic Alternative. In Peru, Shell has returned to the rainforest. It acknowledges "the need to consider environmental sustainability and responsibility to the people involved", but the move is still criticised by more than 60 international and local environmental, human-rights and indigenous groups.
"Shell has not learnt from its tragic mistakes," says Shannon Wright from the Rainforest Action Network, which believes there should be no new fossil-fuel exploration in the rainforest: "They continue to go into areas where there are indigenous people who are susceptible to outside diseases." Meanwhile, Shell publicly talks of engaging "stakeholders".
It hopes that we, as consumers, will continue to give it a licence to operate. However, for each barrel produced, the ecological and cultural price increases exponentially. Everyone knows we need to reduce our consumption of oil: but Shell's very existence depends on selling more of it. Senior executives are said to be "girding our loins for our second century" because "the importance of oil and gas is likely to increase rather than diminish as we enter the 21st century". Can we let that happen?
——————————————————————————–
THIS WEEK'S essayist, Andrew Rowell, is a freelance environmental consultant who has written extensively on the oil industry. He is author of Green Backlash – Global Subversion Of The Environmental Movement (Routledge, 1996)

I have more to show you ,  Sen. Chiz.
Regards,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

FROM HIRING TO DEPARTURE

FROM HIRING TO DEPARTURE
Year 1978  to Year 2003

Figure 1 Shell Refinery Tabangao

I was hired by Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation on 30 May 1978 and worked as  oil movements plant operator on her Tabangao refinery (Figure 1).  On this first year I have noted the perfect attendance scheme which I called perfect attendance scam has already been in placed (Figure 2). This scam had been a yearly endeavor and "awarding" was always ironically done during the annual Christmas Program.  Opponents of the scheme come then go either bribed with promotions or resigned. Discussion over the issue have been part of my yearly job performance appraisal yet Shell would not allow the scheme to be fairly resolved up to year 2000.  On my part I refused to accept the bribe nor quit my job nor weaken my resolve to plea for sanity to the Perfect Attendance Scheme.

Figure 2 sanity on perfect
attendance sought page 1

Figure 3 sanity on perfect
attendance sought page 2

Year 2000

01 January 2000 

PLEDGED NOT TO CUT HAIR

 I took the pledge that I will not cut my hair unless Shell gave sanity to the Perfect Attendance Scheme. This pledge I openly declared to my co-employees, supervisors and managers.  

Year 2001

          September 21, 2001  
          

CBA 2001 was signed.

  

This CBA had been  controversial due to the fact that after a few days  all the union officers were given a fabulous party in Metropolis Manila and after a couple of weeks the union president and another in the the union's executive panel was given a trip to Singapore then to Thailand  in suspected false pretenses of training.  These set of officers became adamant in attending to issues pertaining benefits covered in the CBA like non payment of PRB ( performance related bonus) and threats on union members termination of employment. 

Poem I wrote when the CBA 2001 was signed.
Dedicated to the lower rank in position
members of the union who had been swindled
by leaders who negotiated best for themselves.
Click on the image to enlarge.

Poem translated into English.   This poem draw

ire from concerned union officers  and Shell

management team during those times.

Click on the image to enlarge

Year 2002

April 5, 2002

SHELL WITHHELD PRB PAYMENT 
TO MY RELATIVE

It was already  been agreed  through the Labor Management Cooperation Meeting that Ritchie Coronel an employee who just have resigned and immigrated to the U.S. that he would be receiving his  full Performance Related bonus.  However,  during the payout day management refused  to release the payment when they learned that Ritchie Coronel is my relative and I was assigned by her mother  to receive that PRB payment for him. 

LMC Meeting  dated April 5, 2002
where it was known that Richie Coronel
will receive his full Performance Bonus

May 4, 2002

SON DENIED OF RECOGNITION

My son, Mosses C. Buensuceso, a Shell scholar from high school to college garnered the First Place in the Licensure Examination in the Electronics and Communications Engineers given by the Board of Electronics and Communications Engineering on April 9 and 10, 2002 on Manila, Baguio and Cebu Cities. The Shell management ignored to acknowledge  or congratulate  him for his achievement despite their full knowledge of this event due to the fact that all refinery departments shared a number of gallons of ice cream as celebration of the event.  My son even had asked me when he would be invited by Shell management for a congratulatory meeting.  I responded that management might not invite him anymore as Shell did during his high school and college scholarship awarding  because I myself had not been congratulated by them.

Certificate  of Distinction

June 28, 2002 

UNION OFFICER'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT INQUIRY

Based on these issues and problems by union members in relation with the recent concluded CBA, which the union officers refused and failed to act. HENCE,  I started an inquiry. 

Figure 4 Letter request for the complete
Minutes of Negotiation Meetings

 I  requested through letter from the union secretary copy of the CBA minutes of meeting.   See Figure 4.



On these record of negotiation meetings I noticed three questionable observations.

THAT THE:

1) Minutes of negotiation meetings #34, #37 and #39, where  salary increases and related issues were discussed,  were missing and according to the union secretary those minutes were agreed to be omitted by the union and management panel of negotiators.  This is a violation of the ground rule that minutes of the negotiation meetings shall be duly recorded,  to enable transparency and honesty and avoid cheating and fraud  in the conduct of the negotiation.   See Figure 6.

2) The requirement of two non-officer union member presence on the negotiation meetings to act as witnesses or observers on these negotiations was likewise agreed by both union and management panels to be suspended. This is another violation of the ground rule that there should be  two non officer union member to act as observers to promote honesty, transparency to avoid cheating and fraud in the conduct of the negotiation.   See Figure 7.

3)  The  three Senior Office Staff got 10% maximum rate of salary increase instead of just 9.5% based on their position level. But on account of their 16 years length of service they were given a 10% maximum salary rate increase.  Why the same principle was applied to them but had been denied to me, when in fact  I even had a longer years of service of 24 years?

Figure 6 Ground rule that minutes
of the negotiations shall duly recorded.
see it  along the arrow head line.

Figure 7 Ground rule that two non officer
union member witness shall present in
 the negotiation meetings  as observers

July 13, 2002  

LETTER TO THE UNION PRESIDENT

I wrote a letter to the union president that since the CBA 2001 had been completed, it was just right to put those minutes into writing so that  we could have basis for the complaint we as members of the union are presenting to management.  Besides, it has to be recorded in conformance with the ground rules. However, they refused to write down the minutes.  See Figure 5.

Figure 5 letter request to the union president to

formally write the omitted minutes of

negotiation meetings
Click on the image to enlarge

July 15, 2002

PETITION FOR 
SALARY RATE ADJUSTMENT 

I wrote a petition to  Mr. Bing Veneracion Process Manager, under Mr. Rico Bersamin,  as General Manager, for adjustment of my salary rate increase from 9.5% being a Senior operator to the maximum rate of 10% as what the Senior Office staff got. These three Senior office staff should get only 9.5% being at the same level of Senior operator in Operations who got 9.5%.  However, these Senior staff were given a maximum rate of 10% increase on account of their 16 years of service. I petitioned that I be given the same consideration on account of my even longer length of service of 24 years.  But my petition was ignored and worse no hearing of my petition was ever conducted despite my persistent follow ups,  a violation of my right to due process.   See Figures 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3

Figure 8.1 Petition for salary rate adjustment
page1

Figure 8.2 Petition for salary rate adjustment
page2

Figure 8.3 Petition for salary rate adjustment
page3

November 28, 2002

REDUNDANCY IS A FALLACY

Mr. Rico Bersamin
General Manager
Shell Tabangao Refinery 

Letter of termination of employment effective December 31, 2002 written by   Mr. Rico Bersamin. On this Mr. Rico Bersamin had one month till December 31, 2002 to look  for somebody to replace me  but he was unable to find anyone that was why he wrote  an amended letter dated December 17, 2002 (Figure 11) where he requested me to stay, " in view of the requirement of the  business,"  up to February 15, 2003. These, letters dated November 28, 2002 and letter dated December 17, 2002,  are documentary evidence that prove,  "There existed no redundancy of positions during that time",  because if there was, Mr. Rico Bersamin should have released me at once on December 31, 2002 and should have not requested me to stay "in view of the requirement of the business" until February 15, 2003.

Figure 9 Letter of Termination of Employment
See Figure 11 the amended letter 

November 29, 2002


RANKING PROCESS SHOULD BE AHEAD OF THE LIST  BUT IN REALITY THE LIST EXISTED AHEAD OF THE RANKING PROCESS

List of employees to be terminated received by  DOLE on November 29, 2002. The Ranking process done by Shell supervisors which supposed to be producing this list of employees to be terminated was executed on January 29, 2003.

Hence,  making the " ranking process " DONE  LATER made it subservient to the  LIST already prepared and dictated by Shell.

Figure 10 List of employees to be terminated
Antonio L Buensuceso is already on the list.
This list was already known before the ranking process
by Shell supervisors was carried out.

December  17, 2002  

IN  VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE BUSINESS

Amended notice of termination written by Mr. Bersamin extending my employment until February 15, 2003 re: in view of the requirements of the business. This clearly showed that the reason of redundancy as an excuse to terminate my employment was devoid of merit for the simple reason that if redundancy exists during those times Mr. Bersamin could not have requested me to stay until February 15, 2002 in view of the requirement of the business.

In fact if there was really redundancy, meaning there are excess operators more than the business needs, Mr. Bersamin should have automatically released me on December 31, 2002 as he said on his letter to dated November 28, 2002 and should have not requested me to stay for another month and a half until February 15, 2003.

Figure 11 Amended Letter of Termination

Year 2003

29 January 2003 

RANKING  FIRST LIST NEXT

Ranking, (basis for determining who among the employees are to be terminated),   was conducted. Note this ranking exercise was carried out after the list of employees to be terminated were already determined and submitted to DOLE  on November 29, 2002.

This is a documentary evidence that the ranking exercise was rigged to conform with the list that have been prepared and determined earlier on November 29, 2002.   This gave credence to the the information relayed to me by some supervisors close to me who asked for forgiveness that they could resist the instruction by their boss that I have to be removed from employment.

Figure 12.1 Ranking report page 1.

Please note the date when this ranking

exercise was carried out.

Figure 12.2Ranking report page 2
note that Antonio Buensuceso is
second to the last on the list

This rigged ranking exercise was an expression of personal wrath of Shell against my person. This personal ire led Shell to embarrass me in front of my co-employees, friends and family when Shell rank me with poorest work performer through the action of Shell supervisors who made the rating.  Shell knew that being an employee like me with high regard for my honor, dignity and integrity would excessively be pained by linking to my person, a rating as poorest work performer.  They did not just say that I am a poor work performer, they even vainly announced it to my extreme distress and embarrassment. The company made the rating written and be known publicly as a reasonable proof to show cause why I should be terminated from employment. These acts Shell gave me so much pain and suffering  even  up to these times.  Shell did not just took me out employment but even deprived me good chances of being employed again due to the blight Shell casted upon my person.

This rigged ranking which Shell made with respect to job performance, the same being announced, written and published is a violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution Article 2 : Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 11 which said the following " The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."  This means that the state gives importance to the dignity of every individual  and safeguard full respect for human rights.  The rigged ranking exercise made by the supervisors who had no other choice but to follow instructions of Shell showed reckless exercise of management prerogatives resulting to violations of my human rights, grave embarrassment to my person, dissolution of my dignity.  Be it that justice be dispensed accordingly and appropriate sanctions or penalty be imposed on the party liable for these violations.

In addition, aside from the fact that subservient supervisors would do the ranking, Shell knew that I could not move to defend myself because of the fact that I had let them knew that the redundancy was illegal and ranking being an exercise in continuance of an illegal act,  consequently making the ranking exercise an illegal endeavor as well.

Shell knew fully well that I could not join, object or participate on this ranking exercise,  because of the simple reason that if I did that I would be falling into a trap;  meaning that should I have participated in the ranking deliberations, this action would  legitimize  the redundancy program which I have declared illegal in the first place.  Shell took advantage of this  situation and  obtusely malign my  honor and reputation.

15 February 2003 

Employment termination

RA 7641 RETIREMENT PAY LAW CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL TO COMPLY  WITH  

HER OBLIGATION ON PAYMENT 

OF SEPARATION PAY,  UNLAWFUL

Please see Figure 13

Figure 13  Separation Pay document where
my Retirement Pay Accounts are misappropriated
by Shell circumventing RA 7641, subject to penal
provisions under Article 288 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines

In addition, my youngest child  happened to be a Shell high scholar with one year remaining scholarship after Shell terminated my employment.  This remaining one year scholarship, tuition fee and monthly allowances were all taken away from me.

The company policy with regard to scholarship is not alien to me because I have been entrusted in a couple of years by Mr. Butch Bautista, a Shell retiree who like me, had a son and a daughter both Shell scholars, also lives in Bauan, to receive the monthly allowances for them.  But the same consideration and treatment has been denied from me by Shell.

The TRUTH will set you FREE.