Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Waitrose urged to freeze links with Shell’s Arctic drilling
Waitrose urged to freeze links with Shell's Arctic drilling
Greenpeace launches campaign condemning supermarket's new partnership with Shell, but Waitrose insists the deal is 'tiny'
Waitrose is the latest company to come under fire from Greenpeace, which has alleged its ties to an oil company planning to drill in the Arctic undermines its ethical commitments.The group has launched a new campaign yesterday urging the retailer to drop plans for a new partnership with Royal Dutch Shell that would see Waitrose supermarkets open in Shell petrol stations.
In a spoof advert, Greenpeace accuses Waitrose of misleading the public by promoting its charitable giving over the holiday period and hiding its links with Shell.
Shell has a contract with the US government to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea, 70 miles off Alaska's north-west coast.
Greenpeace is concerned that an accident in icy waters would be "disastrous" and be near impossible for Shell to respond to quickly.
Shell operates 13 petrol stations next to Waitrose branches and is selling Waitrose goods in some of its forecourts. Waitrose also offers fuel promotions with Shell.
"Waitrose can clean up a spill in aisle four with a mop and bucket, but an oil spill in the Arctic cannot be cleaned up so easily," said Greenpeace campaigner Sara Ayech. "It would be a disaster. And it would also have huge consequences for all those companies linked to it, such as Waitrose and Shell.
"Waitrose trades on its caring, green image. It's going to lose that carefully nurtured look very soon, unless they drop Shell."
However, Waitrose responded to the accusations, by insisting its links with Shell were "tiny".
"We put as much thought and careful consideration into our relationships with other businesses as into everything we do," it said in a statement.
"In the context of Shell UK or worldwide, the arrangement we have with them is tiny. Unlike our supermarket competitors, who have substantial petrol operations, Waitrose has chosen to get out of the fuel business."
The company also said it had been reassured that Shell would comply with US legislation and protect the environment when drilling in the Arctic.
SOURCE
Toxic flaring at Shell/Motiva continues after equipment failure
The $500,000 settlement is an accumulated penalty for violations that occurred during the years 2003-2010. During that time there were 265 violations at the Norco facility (and more than 140 violations at the Motiva refinery in Convent)
3 December 2012
An equipment failure at the Shell/Motiva manufacturing complex in Norco caused the release of unknown amounts of butadiene, hydrogen sulfide and benzene, according to a report submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center.
The elevated flaring, which began Sunday and caused a smoky backdrop to Norco's annual Christmas Parade, has continued throughout Monday. The company says they are working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
"We also continue to conduct extensive monitoring around the site and in the community," the statement said. "No injuries have been reported associated with this situation, and air monitoring results indicate no environmental impact at this time."
In October, the Motiva refineries in Norco and Convent agreed to a tentative settlement with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for hundreds of violations of the Clean Air Act.
The $500,000 settlement is an accumulated penalty for violations that occurred during the years 2003-2010. During that time there were 265 violations at the Norco facility (and more than 140 violations at the Motiva refinery in Convent) including the failure by Motiva to file the appropriate application for changes made to its Catalytic Cracking Unit (CCU) that resulted in more pollution being emitted into the local environment.
Motiva is accused of not going through a required review despite knowing that changes to the CCU would result in increased emissions.
In 2008 Motiva was found by the Environmental Protection Agency to be a chronically non-complying facility and put on an internal watch list for that organization.
Related News Article:
• Motiva slapped with $500,000 fine Royal Dutch Shell and Racism
Shell has admitted past discrimination against Jewish employees, which cost at least 20 of them their lives. It supported racist regimes in Nazi Germany and more recently, Apartheid South Africa.
By John Donovan
Shell employees who have accused Shell of being a racist company will be interested in a comparison set out in "A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL, Volume 3″ between Shell's much trumpeted business principles and those of its main competitor, ExxonMobil, in regard to equal employment opportunity.
Shell has admitted past discrimination against Jewish employees, which cost at least 20 of them their lives. It supported racist regimes in Nazi Germany and more recently, Apartheid South Africa.
EXTRACTS FROM PAGE 309/310
Other oil companies came out with comparable policy statements. For instance Exxon gave a booklet to its employees dealing with ethics and responsible behaviour. Interestingly, the Exxon document focused more on the individual employee rather than the operating companies. Starting with the policy on business ethics, the office of the chairman wrote: 'The policy of this Corporation, as stated by the Board of Directors years ago and reaffirmed by the Board at its September 1975 meeting, is one of strict observance of all laws applicable to its business.' Staff were addressed personally in the following manner: 'An overly-ambitious employee might have the mistaken idea that we do not care how results are obtained, as long as he gets results. He might think it best not to tell higher management all that he is doing, not to record all transactions accurately in his books and records, and to deceive the Corporation's internal and external auditors. He would be wrong on all counts. We do care how we get results.' Despite using the male form of address in this document, the company advocated a policy on equal opportunity for individuals, 'regardless of their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap, and veteran's status'. Incidentally, this clause was absent in the Shell statement. Instead, the Shell statement mentioned the responsibility of the Group 'to promote the development and best use of human talent and potential and to encourage employee involvement in the planning and direction of their work'.
The most recent edition of the STANDARDS OF BUSINESS CONDUCT (published November 2011) by ExxonMobil still includes specific provision on equal employment opportunity policy.
As can be seen from the above information published in 2007, after being vetted and approved by senior Shell management, the company is much more reticent than ExxonMobil in providing such assurance.
Astonishingly, the current Shell Business Principles signed by Royal Dutch Shell Plc Chief Executive, Peter Voser, still does not give a comparable specific pledge making it absolutely clear there will be no racial, or other discrimination.
ExxonMobil clearly takes the view that this is such an important issue that no room should be left for doubt. In view of its past track record, you would have thought Shell would wish to do the same.
CLICK ON EACH IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Monday, December 3, 2012
Our Father Who Art in Heaven
From: Friends from Shell Tabangao
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Subject: Our Father Who Art in Heaven
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Subject: Our Father Who Art in Heaven
I will put my faith on this one….
The moment you receive it, say one
(1) Our Father
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever Amen. Now watch what happens on the 4th day.. Our Father is the prayer . This is a Prayer from way back that started , it has never been broken. Within 48 hours send 20 copies to family and friends.. This is a powerful prayer C ouldn't hurt. Please do not break it.... Thank You |
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Shell’s oil spill containment gear ‘crushed like a beer can’ in testing
Shell's oil spill containment gear 'crushed like a beer can' in testing
SHELL ARCTIC FARCE: "Shell and its federal regulators have been tight-lipped about the failed test. But freedom-of-information requests reveal what happened beneath the surface of Puget Sound."
By John Ryan, KUOW, Seattle: Posted on November 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Shell Oil has been building and testing equipment designed for the Arctic Ocean in Puget Sound.In September, a key test of underwater oil-spill equipment was a spectacular failure.
It forced the energy giant to postpone Arctic oil drilling until next summer.
Shell and its federal regulators have been tight-lipped about the failed test. But freedom-of-information requests reveal what happened beneath the surface of Puget Sound.
Before Shell can drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean, it needs to prove to federal officials that it can clean up a massive oil spill there. That proof hinges on a barge being built in Bellingham called the Arctic Challenger.
The barge is only one component of Shell's plans for handling oil spills off the remote north coast of Alaska. But the Obama Administration won't let oil drilling get under way until the 36-year-old barge and its brand new oil-spill equipment are in place.
On board the Arctic Challenger is a massive steel "containment dome." It's a sort of giant underwater vacuum cleaner. If efforts to cap a blown-out well don't work, the dome can capture spewing oil and funnel it to a tanker on the surface.
The Arctic Challenger passed several US Coast Guard tests for seaworthiness in September. But it was a different story when its oil-spill containment system was put to the test in 150-foot-deep water near Anacortes, Washington.
The federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement required the test of the oil-spill system.
"Breached like a whale"
According to BSEE internal emails obtained by KUOW, the containment dome test was supposed to take about a day. That estimate proved to be wildly optimistic.
*Day 1: The Arctic Challenger's massive steel dome comes unhooked from some of the winches used to maneuver it underwater. The crew has to recover it and repair it.
*Day 2: A remote-controlled submarine gets tangled in some anchor lines. It takes divers about 24 hours to rescue the submarine.
*Day 5: The test has its worst accident. On that dead-calm Friday night, Mark Fesmire, the head of BSEE's Alaska office, is on board the Challenger. He's watching the underwater video feed from the remote-control submarine when, a little after midnight, the video screen suddenly fills with bubbles. The 20-foot-tall containment dome then shoots to the surface. The massive white dome "breached like a whale," Fesmire e-mails a colleague at BSEE headquarters.
Then the dome sinks more than 120 feet. A safety buoy, basically a giant balloon, catches it before it hits bottom. About 12 hours later, the crew of the Challenger manages to get the dome back to the surface. "As bad as I thought," Fesmire writes his BSEE colleague. "Basically the top half is crushed like a beer can."
Representatives of Shell Oil and of BSEE declined to answer questions or allow interviews about the mishaps. In an email, Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh writes:
"Our internal investigation determined the Arctic Challenger's dome was damaged when it descended too quickly due to a faulty electrical connection, which improperly opened a valve. While safety systems ensured it did not hit the bottom, buoyancy chambers were damaged from the sudden pressure change."
Environmentalist Todd Guiton lives on Sehome Hill in Bellingham. His condo overlooks the Bellingham Shipping Terminal, where the Arctic Challenger has been under construction for a year now.
"Just look out our window, and there it is," Guiton says.
He says the steel dome came back from its sea trial with its top half crumpled like a piece of paper. In the two months since, Guiton says, he's been watching Shell contractors rebuild the dome and reinforce it with more steel.
"This has to be a very beefy operation to do what they claim it'll do," Guiton says. "It failed under very calm, tranquil conditions in the best time of year up here in the Pacific Northwest. If it can't handle the best we have here, I really have my doubts it can handle even a little adversity in the Arctic."
Spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh wouldn't say what Shell is doing to fix the dome or when it would be ready for testing again.
Earlier in November, the Obama administration called for more research into handling oil spills in the far North.
The Arctic Research Commission said oil-spill experiments and tests need to be done in the Arctic Ocean and that federal regulators need more staff or more time to properly vet proposals for offshore drilling at the top of the world.
The BSEE internal e-mails obtained by KUOW
SOURCE
Friday, November 23, 2012
Donovans mud throwing campaign against Shell
Donovans mud throwing campaign against Shell
"It looks like the Donovans, the Royal Dutch Shell humiliators and mud throwing campaign initiators, the donors of cheat and steal approach are indemnified, otherwise they could have been sued for their below the belt statements derogating human dignity and respect. And the methods they use are outrageous examples of brainwashing of the people not involved in the petroleum industry, mixing true and false facts making it almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. I am writing this because I have worked on the Sakhalin 1 and 2 Project…"
By John Donovan
Printed below is an extraordinary email circulated overnight by a disgruntled former employee of Sakhalin Energy to various recipients, including senior people at Sakhalin Energy, Gazprom, Royal Dutch Shell, the Financial Times, Dow Jones Newswires, Bloomberg, the Russian government and the UK Police. It was originally sent to Thomas Zengerly, a director of Sakhalin Energy.
As can be seen, the sender does not seem to be particularly fond of us or our involvement in the Sakhalin 2 project as a conduit for whistleblowers.
The disgruntled translator, who has circulated veiled threats against us, is apparently also upset by the departure some time ago of Egbert Wijnen-Riems from SNGS (SakhalinNefteGasService).
This is but one of countless emails sent by the same disturbed person, many of which make reference to us, and contain all kinds of allegations. Corruption also rears its ugly head in some of the emails.
THE EMAIL
Dear Mr. Zengerly,
I do believe that SNGS has potential for its further growth and development. Despite of all, the base load has been formed and the team has been built and I do feel attached to people and still trying to do something "4my people", because my concern is that like with STS Service taken over by Orensakh, Gazprom has got its plans for SNGS to bring their branch or subsidiary to take over the company.
It's a multi-phased Project and 4 years have passed since Gazprom's takeover and Greer's resignation and 1 year since Wijnen-Riems has gone — quite enough time to look back and to ponder whether those actions weren't right and whose management style was more efficient.
To err is human and nobody is perfect, and it's more pleasant to deal with somebody vivacious, alive, and human rather than with somebody as emotionless, as alive as wax figures in the Madame Tussaud's museum and let me be the blatant plagiarist and repeat: "I am sure EWR has learnt the lessons, he had enough time to think them over and he is ready to come back with new ideas and strategies to go through the phase of restructural changes and to bring SNGS to the level of sustainable development, stability and prosperity for the sake of the Sakhalin II Project, SEIC, SNGS and for people's benefit."
Certainly, I don't know all of the details of what was going on between Mr. Wijnen-Riems and Ms. Gremblat, but from what I saw on the surface, it looked awful and terrible, totally against my personality and conscience. And I still remember the day of the New Year's party when the audit was in full swing. It was too much for me to attend the New Year's party, because all of my energy was given to support the audit team. However, Ms. Gremblat and Mr. xxxxxxxxx came to the party as if nothing had happened that it's not really her who had started everything and nothing inappropriate had been done.
In such a small world and especially in a small town like Yuzhno the news is spread very fast and reputation of the company has been derogated just because of the conflict driven by greed and arrogance. Eat or be eaten — this is a very good example of following this principle. And does Ms. Gremblat share the same values with me? Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship? Has she built a good reputation of the company she works in? What kind of example can she set for others being a Contracts Manager? Has she been accountable for her words, actions, and attitudes? Speaking about manager's duty to lead by example, EWR was "unhappy" with Gremblat's discipline and when the procedure for registration of absence from the office was introduced by him, Gremblat got outrageous and called it a chasing policy. But how come I saw her at the notary's office, when notarizing translations for the Shutdown, doing her own business, resolving her personal issues?
In view of those risks and further escalation of non-conformance to ethical values, thus bringing company to an end, I believe that Mr. Wijnen-Riems is to be called back and Ms. Gremblat be removed and replaced, probably by me.
Perhaps, Wijnen-Riems wasn't always aligned with the Client in terms of assignments and jobs like demolition of the camp at the LNG site, but he considered the consequences and potential hazards and was protecting SNGS against legal troubles and that particular work was given to Wakkor and they earned money and that was used against Wijnen-Riems too as an inappropriate management decision and who can say now that SEIC was right and his decision was wrong? And considering all those challenges Mr. Wijnen-Riems had to face, I doubt that he is the one who came here to reinforce his CV. Power over money, money over power? But he started his own business in Germany, a VP of Airstream Gourmet.
Many times I've heard a story about the person from Fluor who worked in Russia, committed some financial crime and was put to prison, hinting that the audit was aimed to check EWR's integrity and honesty and here is another question: is it a shady person or a shady company, a fly in the ointment or a routine?
And for me to find a hot news spreader, who will try to put my name to shame behind my back, I just open an X-file about my relationship with my ex to find out whether this person is a fly in the ointment, a hidden threat for me, or a person who wouldn't hurt a fly.
Certainly, General Manager bears personal responsibility for what's going on in the company, but how could Wijnen-Riems control xxxxxxxxx on a business trip in Korea, who screwed up everything? How could EWR intervene and see xxxxxxxxxxx improper act in Korea and get involved and take action? Is it a failure of General Manager or his subordinate who, when not even fired, felt downgraded when transferred to a lower position, started blaming EWR? In Korea xxxxxxxxx was more concerned about his private life and personal problems — divorce and affair with Gremblat — rather than about business and the purpose he was sent for. Why should xxxxxxxxxxx actions and his mistakes and losses of the company due to his gross negligence have impacted SUP and other activities going simultaneously? And how come the Directors could say that two last years were a complete failure, due to whom, I wonder?
Egbert Wijnen-Riems has worked for SNGS since its foundation and was going through all its evolution stages and it's quite enough time to be "Sakhalinized" and to gain popularity among his supporters, men and women, who expressed their supportive attitude during the audit either in their conversations with the Directors or in a letter, the authenticity of which was questioned, as well as good will of people. Even the Directors admitted that the majority was for him but, alas, didn't take it into consideration. And my dignity was hurt by suspicions and allegations again that EWR told me what to write, thus doubting authenticity of my messages. What can be expected from the cunning linguist keeping her mouth shut? Let me quote: "translators have good memory recall and many other remarkable skills; they are omnivorous readers typically in the middle of 4 books at once in different languages, subjects."
It's amazing how quickly the Directors have changed their opinion, firstly, the bonus to pay EWR for his excellent performance was discussed and then, all of a sudden, two last years were a complete failure and I don't understand why Gremblat is still at SNGS and Wijnen-Riems is gone, ignoring his input and contributions to the development of SNGS. Could the Directors have a fair-minded attitude and make an impartial assessment of EWR's work if Polyansky imposed his biased approach? In all fairness, one has to recognize that the audit was carried out in the biased manner.
Ms. Gremblat referred to different mentalities, yes, indeed, there is cultural diversity and it should be taken into consideration as well as people's conservatism reluctant to accept new ideas and concepts because CHANGE is the scariest word, especially in Russia, where the political regime can change within a few days.
If in Mr. Greer's case it's unknown who was the source of the leaked email, in EWR's case it's obvious who was providing the incognito emails. What is not clear to me, how come this person stays on the project though has failed to follow SEIC requirement "I will comply with the law, standards, and procedures". Tandems are quite popular nowadays in Russia and I wouldn't be surprised that Gremblat wasn't alone when sending her allegations on emails, allegations that never came true, and two are needed to dance tango. Or was it a triumvirate like in the ancient times? But they used to, alas, collapse like the USSR.
It's not only failure to fulfill ex-officio manager's moral obligations, not only incompliance with "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor", this is derogation of human dignity and a violation of human rights protected by the RF Constitution since business is going on in the Russian Federation.
"We are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like, But you can never leave!" I feel attached to Sakhalin like Scarlett O'Hara to Tara regaining her strength and vitality from "the green cotton fields of home" I am regaining my strength and vitality from the karma of the territory and beautiful nature of the Island(ers). And that's why Egbert Wijnen-Riems can already be considered a Sakhaliner. Would anyone keep the photos of the place if not attached to it?
I can't disagree with Eric Arkenstein's speculation that the source of the leaked email was someone from Gazprom. I believe him, Gazpromers are not Sakhaliners. A Sakhaliner wouldn't possibly have done that, it's against his/her "Mother Nature", instincts, and karma and the human nature rather than human factor and character should be counted as well. I'd like to ask the Sakhalin-2 personnel from different countries and companies working on the Project — are you Sakhaliners, too? or just guests on the Gazpromised land?
As far ass the Donovans is concerned, every time I visit their website I can't help "getting too emotional, sarcastic, pesky, and peshky". Both of them used to work for Royal Dutch Shell, they got all the information, saturated with the necessary data, and left the Company to establish their International Whistleblowers Center.
Who are the Donovans? They are thieves. Are thieves the prophets nowadays and moral voices? Save Our Souls – oh, no, nowadays SOS is more likely to be interpreted as Sell Our Souls, and "faith, hope, and charity" are now "vanity, brutality, and hypocrisy" of the modern world? O tempora! O mores!
It looks like the Donovans, the Royal Dutch Shell humiliators and mud throwing campaign initiators, the donors of cheat and steal approach are indemnified, otherwise they could have been sued for their below the belt statements derogating human dignity and respect. And the methods they use are outrageous examples of brainwashing of the people not involved in the petroleum industry, mixing true and false facts making it almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. I am writing this because I have worked on the Sakhalin 1 and 2 Projects and know what I am talking about and do feel the difference between the guns and butter.
The plain fact is that if the Donovans had abided themselves with the SGBP values or The Ten Commandments, would they have collaborated with a former KGB officer and sold the stolen information and blatant lies? I am saying this more in sorrow than in anger because I feel hurt for my country, my small motherland and my President and Prime Minister for applying such methods and rules of the game.
And if Mr. Greer can be reproached for using the General Patton's speech, yet, he is a man more sinned against than sinning, nobler than such honorable men as the Donovans and their collaborators, the social email leakers. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
To continue my humble efforts to expose the Donovans' hypocrisy, just worth mentioning that nothing is said about contributions and input made by Shell worldwide for the sustainable development of any environment the Corporation works in, including environmental protection and social programs. The SGBP is being been used as a PR tool to promote undeserved confidence in the scruples and honesty of Shell senior management. Or maybe it's the Donovans who use royaldutchshellplc.com as sensationalism of the media? This is not a Shell website nor is it endorsed by or affiliated with Shell, but it is a Shell affiliate of wormtongues and poisonous snakes warmed on the bosom of their master compared to Gremblat gambling behind EWR's back.
Shell, SEIC, and the Sakhalin-2 Project have always been under great public scrutiny, spotlight of the authorities and close monitoring of the Donovans requiring validation of every step taken and every cost spent.
Can Gazprom provide a model for better management of the offshore and onshore commercially exploited oil and gas fields?
There might be other anti-Shell websites and whistleblowers, just the Donovans are much more aggressive than anyone else, more sophisticated in their approaches of getting information, doing everything possible and using every leverage to put Shell's name to shame. But what's disappointing is that despite all critical remarks the Donovans will continue to provide the information and hatchet job available to them, they will follow the low road once taken because of their distorted values and lost integrity.
Some criminals are forgiven if they turn in politicians who provided protection to them and Mr. Putin and his government are the perfect protection rackets for the Donovans? Like Polyansky and DEM are the protection rackets for Gremblat.
And the game is still the same and Gazpromers have an impressive ideologue, equally at home in economics and in politics, the one who is usually holding back letting everyone stay put and then, suddenly, things will start happening. Surely, with his background as a professional KGB man, he is adept at playing the challenging role of "a friend among foes" and " a foe among his own".
It's hard to be God, it's hard to be czar, it's hard to be the RF President and it's hard to be an SEIC CEO. This is not rocket science, it's the petroleum industry and drilling operations and hazardous process facilities requiring maximum attention and alignment amongst management and any misalignment is concerning, because should there be any breach in the process chain or a glitch in the system – crash, boom, bang – and no treasure island called Sakhalin on the map and it looks like this is a no-brainer for Vladimir Vladimirovich to rule the roost and keep the oil and gas project, which is the largest of its kind, under control, brawn and background as a professional KGB man instead of brains.
By looking at the situations have been exposed to and by reading RDSplc.com, I just can't help saying and quoting: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. But I am confident of the successful future of the Sakhalin-2 Project, SEIC, and SNGS and "tomorrow is another day".
Sincerely,
EMAIL ENDS
For the record:
We were never employees of Shell.
We have never solicited or received any payment of any kind from any party in relationship to our website. That includes the Russian government. Our whole operation is non-commercial. There are no subscription or any other charges. We turn down all offers from parties wishing to advertise on our site. All of our Shell related websites have always operated on an entirely non-commercial basis.
We do not throw mud at Shell. We bombard the company with unpalatable facts. If this was not the case, Shell would have sued us for defamation long ago. Eight companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group did for several years hold an injunction over information published on this website, but withdrew the action rather than allow the evidence to be aired in open court. A very wise decision under the circumstances.
We did supply crucial evidence to a Russian Government Minister, Oleg Mitvol, as he confirmed at the time in media interviews and has confirmed again in a TV interview earlier this year. The documents including a leaked Shell/SEIC email provided evidence of a cover-up by Shell in relation to important environmental issues. The cover-up cost Shell its control of the project.
With regards to David Greer, he was the author of his own misfortune, or to be more accurate, it was US General George S. Patton.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Motion for RECONSIDERATION (with links to documentary proofs)
THE CLERK OF COURT DECIDES WITH FINALITY
 |
| Illegal dismissal case merits decided by the Clerk of Court Hon. ENRIQUETA VIDAL multi skilling of a kind and remarkably IT'S MORE FUN IN THE PHILIPPINES |
Decision with FINALITY ( one page ) by the Clerk of Court
please click on the images to enlarge
THE CLERK OF COURT DECISION dated 30 July 2008
Dear Sen. Chiz
Maligayang bati po sa inyo!!!
Narito po sa ibaba ang akin pong bukas na liham para kay Hon. Chief Justice at mga
Kagalang-galang na mga Huwes ng Korte Suprema ng Pilipinas na humihiling na muling pag-aralan ang aking asunto laban sa Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.
Para sa inyo pong kaalaman napadalahan din po kayo ng sipi ng petisyong ito sa
pamamagitan ng registered mail.
Heto po ang sulat :
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
October 30, 2008
Hon. Reynato Puno
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Manila
Mahal na Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice:
Maligayang bati po sa inyo.
Ako po si Antonio L. Buensuceso, petitioner sa kaso Blg. GR-183273 (Antonio L. Buensuceso vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation/Rico Bersamin) na sa kasalukuyang naninirahan sa 324 W. Casurina Pl. Beverly Hills, Florida, U.S. A. , naghahanapbuhay bilang janitor sa isang "nursing home" malapit lang po sa nabanggit na address.
Mangyari pong lumiham ako upang manikluhod at magpakumbabang makiusap po sa inyo na bigyang daan ang muling pag-aaral sa aking petisyon. Ang muling pag-aaral po sa petisyong ito ay ipinagkait ng First Division ng Supreme Court sa dahilang hindi po napadalhan ng kopya ang Court of Appeals at ang iba pang adverse parties at kawalan di umano ng mga patunay sa mga kamalian ng Court of Appeals. Ganoon din po, di umano ay wala po akong naipakitang sapat na dahilan na para ang mga decision ng Labor Arbiter, NLRC at ng Court of Appeals ay baligtarin.
Una po, Mahal na Chief Justice, nakasama ko po rito sa Amerika ang aking butihing maybahay at ang naiwan po sa Pilipinas ay ang tatlo ko pong anak at ang kanilang 90 anyos na lola na hindi nakatayo o nakakaupo sanhi po ng injury sa balakang. Sa dami po ng kanilang intindihin sa pang-araw araw na pagharap sa hamon ng buhay, paghahalihaliling pag aalaga sa kanilang lolang nasa banig ng karamdaman, sampu sa kalituhan at pagharap sa kaso ko laban sa Shell, na sila na lang tatlong magkakapatid ang nagtutulong -tulong sa dahilan pong wala na pong abugado ang may nais pang mag-ukol ng panahon dahil sa Shell daw po ang kalaban na kahit pa talo sa argumento ay mananalo pa rin sa kaso dahil sa malawak nitong impluensya at kapangyarihan. Dahil po dito sila pong magkakapatid ay kumikilos na walang lubos na patnubay ng isang abugado. Kaya po, Mahal na Chief Justice nag susumamo po ako sampu ng aking mag-anak ng inyong paglingap at pang-unawa. Sana po maunawaan ninyo kami at ganoon din po ang aming mga Kagalanggalang na Hukom ng First Division ng Supreme Court.
Kagalang-galang na Chief Justice, Your Honors, mangyari pong ilahad ko ang mga malalaking pagkakamali ng mga pinagdaanang hukuman :
1. Ang kaso di umano ay di sakop ng jurisdiction ng Labor Arbiter kundi sakop ng jurisdiction ng voluntary arbitrator.
Ito po Mahal na Chief Justice ay maling pananaw sa kasong ito. Ito po ay sa dahilang kung sa paraang voluntary arbitration diringgin ang kasong ito, ay hindi na ito maisusulong sa dahilang kailangan rito ang pagkilos ng unyon para ito maisakatuparan na sa pagkakataong ito ay hindi kumilos o gumawa ng hakbangin para gawin ang bagay na ito. Ang unyon ay hindi kumilos kahit munti o nagbigay ng kahit anong pag-alalay sa akin. Kung dito po sa voluntary arbitration dadaanin ang pagdinig sa kasong ito, ay wala na po akong makakamtang katarungan.
1.1 Bukod dito Mahal na Chief Justice, hindi na po mapapasubalian o maitatanggi ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter na wala ito sa kanyang jurisdiction sa dahilang dumaan na ito sa preliminary hearings hanggang inatasan kami ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter na magsumite ng kanya-kanya naming position papers at ibat-iba pang magkakaugnay na dokumento na nangangahulugan lamang na tinatanggap ng kagalang galang na Labor Arbiter na ang kasong ito ay sakop ng kanyang jurisdiction.
1.2 Sa dagdag pang paliwanag Mahal na Chief Justice mangyaring ilahad ko po rito ang isang bahagi ng desisyon ng Second Division ng Supreme Court, petsa October 24, 2000, GR No. 138938 may titulong :CELESTINO VIVIERO, petioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HAMMONIA MARINE SERVICES and HANSEATIC SHIPPING LTD. respondents ;
xxxUnder their CBA both union and respondent companies are responsible for selecting an impartial arbitrator or for convening an arbitration commmittee, yet it is apparent that neither made a move toward this end. Consequently, petitioner should not be deprived of his legitimate recourse because of the refusal of both union and respondent companies to follow the grievance procedure.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to the labor arbiter to dispose of the case with dispatch until terminated considering the undue delay already incurred.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., concur. XXX
Ito po ay malinaw na katulad ng katayuan sa inihaing kaso laban sa Shell na nararapat lamang bigyan ng parehong pagpapahalaga at consideration.
2. Ang pagsang-ayon ng mga nakabababang hukuman na ang RETIREMENT PAY na ipinagkaloob sa akin ay SEPARATION PAY na sinasabi ng batas ay isa rin pong kamalian na dapat ituwid.
2.1 Kami po sa Shell ay mayroong RETIREMENT PROGRAM na dito ay naglalaan ang kumpanya ng tumbas na halaga sa bawat taon ng paglilingkod at ito ay ibinibigay sa panahong ang isang kawani ay magreretiro na. Ito po ay kusang loob na ibinibigay ng kumpanya walang hinihinging kapalit (nakasulat po roon sa mga papeles ang mga salitang ex-gratia, salitang Latin po na ang ibig sabihin ay walang hihinging kapalait at gratuity, (bukal sa loob na pagbibigay). Ito ay bilang handog para sa mahabang panahong paglilingkod ng isang kawani. Idinadagdag po nila rito ang halaga ng hindi pa nagagamit na bakasyon, mid-year bonus at Christmas bonus. Eto pong retirement package na ito ang tanging ibinigay sa akin at sa kanilang panlilinlang tinawag rin nila itong SEPARATION PAY na itinatadhana ng batas."
Kung ito pongRETIREMENT PAY na ibinigay nila sa akin ay ipipilit nilang SEPARATION PAY na itinadhana ng batas ito ay tahasang pag-amin ng kumpanya sa kanyang intensyon na ako ay linlangin. Ako bilang kawani na may mahabang panahon ng paglilingkod ay may karapatang tumanggap ng retirement pay base sa retirement program ng kumpanya at ako bilang kawani na aalisin sa trabaho ay may karapatan sa SEPARATION PAY base sa sinasabi ng batas.
Sa dahilang ang pagbabayad ng SEPARATION Pay ay isa sa mga requirement upang maging legal ginawa nilang pagtatanggal sa akin sa trabaho ngunit itong pagbabayad na ito ay hindi nila tinupad o nagawa man sa paraang pandaraya, kaya po ito ay illegal. Sa madaling salita, illegal ang pagkakatanggal sa akin.
2.1 Sa patuloy pong usapin tungkol sa RETIREMENT PAY" na tinawag nilang SEPARATION PAY ; na ang halagang ito ay tinanggap ko at nilagdaan ko na ang " RELEASE DOCUMENT " pabor sa kumpanya, na nagsasaad na wala nang pananagutan pa ang kumpanya sa anumang paghahabol pa sa hinaharap ay isang pagkakamaling binigyan ng halaga ng nakaraang hukuman na hindi isina-alang-alang ang mga sumusunod:
2.11 Na, ang naturang RELEASE DOCUMENT ng RETIREMENT PAY na tinawag nilang "SEPARATION PAY" ay nangangailangan ng panunumpa sa harap ng isang notario publico, sa Ingles po ay VERIFICATION, na nagsasaad na iyong lagda ko roon ay sanhi ng aking lubos at maluwag sa loob na pagtanggap sa kabayarang at mga consideration na nakasaad doon. Sa madaling salita ang dokumento pong ito ay hindi verified. Ang RELEASE DOCUMENT pong ito ay walang petsa; Pansinin po natin ang petsa ng tseke na kanilang ibinigay sa akin kaugnay ng retirement pay, FEBRUARY 17, 2003.
2.12 Na, ang naturang RELEASE DOCUMENT ay nangangahulugan po na walang bisa dahil po noong ilang buwan matapos ang pagbabayad ng kumpanya sa akin ng RETIREMENT pay, ay binayaran naman nila sa akin ang PERFORMANCE BONUS, muli ay pinalagda ako sa pangalawang RELEASE DOCUMENT may petsang _OCTOBER 23, 2003. Samakatuwid, merong pangalawang RELEASE DOCUMENT na ginawa ang kumpanya . Muli, hindi rin po ito verified. Nangangahulugan po lamang na ang unang "release document" na kung saan nakapaloob ang aking retirement pay ay nagpapakita ng lubos na pag-amin ng kumpanya, na hindi tunay na "release document" ang mga papeles na iyon, sa kadahilanang kung ito ay tunay na release document at pinahahalagahan ng kumpanya ay hindi na sana ako binayaran pa ng PERFORMANCE BONUS makalipas ang ilang buwan, ngunit, ako ay muling binayaran at ang mga dokumentong ito ngayon ay naging mistulang mga resibo lamang ng mga pinagbayaran nila sa akin at walang saysay O INTENSYON NG MAGKABILANG PANIG NA GAWING bilang RELEASE DOCUMENT.
2.13 Ang "estoppel" po, ay tinatangagap ng ating hukuman na hindi hadlang sa anumang lihitimo at makatarungang paghahabol laban sa kumpanya na nararapat na isalang-alang at bigyan ng pagpahalaga sa usaping ito.
3. Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, ang CBA o Collective Bargaining Agreement ay isang kasunduan sa pagitan ng mga kawani at kumpanya na dapat tuparin at igalang ng magkabilang panig upang makamtam ang kapayaan sa pagawaan. Dito po sa CBA namin ay mayroon pong
JOB SECURITY PROVISION : "TASREA (union) recognizes the right of the Company to contract out work, however , NO EMPLOYEE SHALL SUFFER LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTED WORK."
Isasalin ko po sa wika natin : "TASREA(unyon) ay kumikilala sa karapatan ng kumpanya na mangontrata ng trabaho, kaya nga lamang ay, walang kawani na magdurusa sa pagkawala ng trabaho dahilan sa pinakontratang trabaho."
3.1 Kagalang galang na Chief Justice, noong panahong tanggalin ako sa trabaho ay maraming trabaho namin ang ipinakokontrata, sa Jetty operation at maintenance; Kung susundin at igagalang lang ng Shell ang nakasaad sa JOB SECURITY PROVISION ng aming CBA , bawasin lang ang isa maaring di na nila ako tanggalin. Ngunit ang pagbabawas po ng kontractor na gumagawa ng trabaho namin ay hindi ginawa ng Shell. Kaya po ito ay tahasang paglabag sa diwa ng JOB SECURITY PROVISION ng aming CBA.
3.2 Bukod po rito Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, noong panahong tanggalin ako ay tumangap ang Shell ng mga bagong operator na magpapatakbo ng "Bitumen Plant" na tinawag naman nilang "Bitumen Import Facility". Bawasin lang ang isa sa mga tatangaping bagong operator na iyon ay maaari na akong hindi tanggalin. Ito po hindi rin nila ginawa.
4. Ang PAGDADAGDAG ng Kagalanggalang na Labor Arbiter ng MALING IMPORMASYON upang palabasin na ang petition para sa Salary Rate Adjustment base sa long years of service ay maalis sa kanyang jurisdiction. Ang pandaraya pong ito ay HINDI NAKITA ng nabubulagang nakaraang hukuman.
4.1 Ganito po yun. Upang maialis ng Kgg. na Labor Arbiter sa kanyang jurisdiction ang aking petisyon for salary rate adjustment ay kanyang sinulat sa kanyang desisyon, na natanggap na ng LMC (Labor and Management Council) acting as Grievance Committee ang aking petition noong April 05, 2002, at ang pangyayaring ito ay nasa minutes na ng LMC meeting noong April 05, 2002.
Magkaganoon dapat lamang ay sa Grievance Committee, di-umano, ko dapat i-follow up ang issue o paghahabol, at hindi sa kanya (Kgg. Labor Arbiter ) ang giit niya.
Ito ay malisyoso at maling impormasyon na dapat ituwid sa dahilang noong isulat ko ang petition ay noong July 15, 2002, at tinanggap naman ni Mr. Veneracion noong July 16, 2002 matagal nang natapos ang April 05, 2002 LMC meeting. Huli po, RED HANDED ang Kgg. na Labor Arbiter, nararapat po sanang na-reprimand man lang, kung hindi man ma-"disBAR" o maalisan ng karapatang maging abugado. Marami po itong ipapahamak kung manatili sa tungkulin. Ngunit ano po ang ginawa ng Court of Appeals ? Tinangkilik po ang kanyang pagsisinungaling " hook, sinker and line". Ito po ay nararapat lamang na pagbuhusan ng pansin at ang kanilang mga pagkakamali ay maituwid sa pangalan ng katarungan at patas na pagdinig.
5. Maling paggamit ng Kagalanggalang na Labor Arbiter RESIGN at RETIRE.
Sa sinulat na desisyon ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter. Sinulat po niya na kung ako ay magreRETIRE ay magkakautang pa ako sa kumpanya, na ang pinagbasehan niya ay ang mga datus ay mula sa kolum ng RESIGNATION. Ang tumpak pong dapat sinulat niya ay kung ako ay magreRESIGN ay magkakautang pa ako sa kumpanya. Ngunit ako po ay di nagresign kundi nagretire sa kagustuhan ng kumpanya kaya hindi po ako magkakautang at sa halip ay tatangapin ko ang halagang tulad ng naibigay na sa akin. Ito rin po ay nararapat na muling tingnan at pag-aralan.
6. Lantarang pagpabor ng Kgg. na Labor Arbiter sa usaping pabor sa Shell. Mapapansin po ninyo na sa desisyon ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter ay lubusan ang kanyang pagpapaliwanag sa Grievance Procedure ng aming CBA; kanya po itong in-interpret o ipinaliwanag ng buong-buo.
Samantalang ang JOB SECURITY PROVISION ng aming CBA : " TASREA(the union) recognizes the right of the company to contract out work, provided, no employee shall suffer loss of employment on account of contracted work." , ay di man lamang niya inunawa. Kung paniniwalaan po natin ang kanyang sinasabi na wala sa kanyang jurisdiction ang mga kaso ukol sa interpretasyon o implimentasyon ng CBA, bakit po ba niya na-interpret ang Grievance Procedure at di po niya ma-interpret ang Job Security Provision, ganong parte rin naman ng iisang CBA.
Bukod dito, alam niyang "moot and academic " at "mockery of justice" balikan pang muli na gawin daanin sa Grievance Procedure kaso ko laban sa Shell dahil sa napakatagal na ng panahong nakalipas at ang unyon na hindi kumilos noon ay anong dahilan pa para kumilos ngayon. Itong manifestation na ipinakita ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter ay tahasang pagkampi sa Shell na dapat ituwid .
7. Ang OIL DEREGULATION LAW na sinasabi ng Shell na nagbibigay sa kumpanya ng financial o economic difficulties kaya nagsarado ng lumang planta at nagbawas ng kawani ay isang kasinungalingan. Bagkus, ang batas na naturan ay malaking tulong sa kanilang mga taga industriya ng langis. Nakikita po natin na sa bawat pagtaas ng kanilang gastusin gaya ng pagtaas ng presyo ng krudo sa world market ay kaagad na nakapagtataas sila ng presyo ng kanilang produktong petrolyo. Binigyan po sila ng kalayaang magtakda ng presyo para sa mabawi ang anumang pagkalugi na nararanasan nila. Sa ibang salita ay itong batas na ito ay protection nila laban sa anumang pagkalugi at di kailanman magiging pasanin ng industriya ng langis. Ito po ay nararapat ituwid sa pagtanaw muli sa kasong ito.
8. Ang DEMOLITION ng LUMANG PLANTA, ang mga larawan na kuha sa aktibidad na ito, pati na ang mga dokumento na nagpapakita kung sinong foreign contractor gumawa nito at ang halagang ginugol rito ng SHELL para maisakatuparan ang DEMOLITION ay pawang ipinakita ng SHELL bilang patunay ng pagsasara ng lumang planta at pagdemolish dito. Ngunit sa halip na makatulong ito sa kaso nila, bagkus higit itong nagdiin sa kanila, sa dahilang labis pa itong karagdagang patunay ng pagsisinungaling ng SHELL na ang financial o economic difficulties ang dahilan ng pagsasara ng lumang planta at pagbabawas ng kawani. Pansinin po ninyo ang halagang ginastos sa DEMOLITION, Php129,950,000.00. Ganyan po ba ang paraan ng pag-gastos ng isang kumpanyang may financial o economic difficulties ang gumastos ng Php129,950,000.00 para sa isang demolition lang, na hindi naman kailangan noong panahong iyon. Ang CALTEX po, na halimbawa rin po nila na nagsara ng lumang planta, ngunit ang DEMOLITION ay HINDI nila naging OPTION. Ang katotohanang pong ito ay hindi binigyang halaga ng mga dinaanang hukuman na nararapat lamang pagtuunan ng pansin.
9. Nalisan din po, Mahal na Chief Justice, Your Honors, sa kanilang lubusang pag-aaral na kung bakit ba sa dinami-dami ng mga option na maaaring gawin para hindi ako tanggalin sa trabaho ay lumalabas talagang ipinagpilitan ang pagtanggal sa akin. Hindi po nabigyan pagkakataon namasusing pag-aaral ang mga issues na aking ipinaglalaban at ang maaring kaugnayan nito sa pagtanggal sa akin.
9.1 Yun pong usapin sa PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCHEME na tinawag ko pong PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCAM isa pong nakabalatkayong extortion racket ng SHELL na ang biktima ay ang kaawa-awang kawani na binigyan ng AWARD mismo. Sa simula po ng bawat taon, kaming mga kawani ay sinasabihan ng mga boss namin na magperfect attendance. Ibig sabihin po ay vacation leave lang ang aming gagamitin kung kailangan namin ng leave. Huwag ang sick leave kahit na kami ay may sakit , at huwag din ang emergency o personal leave kahit pa dinala mo ang anak mo sa hospital. Kung ang empleado ay sumunod sa tagubilin siya ay bibigyan ng PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD (isang bondpaper) at isang G.E. flat iron (PLANTSA) at isang pamBOBOlang pangako na promotion sa trabaho. Kung hindi naman sinunod ng kawani ang tagubilin, ang kawani ay kakausapin, pagsasabihan at tatakutin na ibibitin ang promotion o ililipat sa ibang job assignment na mahihirapan ang kawani. Walang magawa ang mga kawani kundi sumunod na mag-perfect attendance kahit labag sa loob.
Baka po nais ninyong malaman kung gaano kalaki ang nakukuhang kotong ng SHELL sa scam na ito ?Natalakay ko na po ito sa mga dokumento na nai-submit ko sa mga nakaraang hukuman sa wikang Ingles po lamang, ngayon po sa wika po natin.
Kaming mga kawani po ay mayroong personal/emergency leave na 5 araw at 15 araw na sick leave. Nakuha po namin yun sa aming CBA. Eto po ang rule nila : HINDI po naming maaring gamitin ang mga naturang leaves upang maging perfect attendance awardee.
Ang bawat awardee ay hindi gumamit ng 5 araw na personal/emergency leave at 15 araw na sick leave. Ang mga leaves na ito ay ipo-forfeit ng SHELL. Opo, pino-forfeit po ng SHELL. Ibig sabihin po, ay 20 araw na trabaho ang kinokotong sa kanya ng SHELL.
Sa dahilan pong hindi siya lumiban sa trabaho hindi po nangailangan ng kanyang kahalili na sana ay babayaran ng SHELL ng 20 araw at karagdagan pong 10 araw para sa overtime. Sa madaling salita, ang bawat awardee ay nagbibigay sa SHELL ng may halagang 50 araw na kapakinabangan. Bakit naman po tinumbasan lang ng isang papel, isang plantsa at pamBOBOla ? Kung hindi po sinunod bakit kailangan pang ang kawani ay kausapin, pagsabihan at takuting hindi ipo-promote o dili kaya ay ililipat sa ibang mas mahirap na job assignment ? Ang hiling ko po at ng iba pa naming mga kawani, ay commensurate award, at least mga 20 araw rin lang po. Ngunit naging manhid po ang SHELL sa aming hiling at nananatili ang extortion racket na ito hanggang ngayon.
Ang katinuan po ng sistemang ito ang mahaba ko nang panahong ipinaglalaban hanggang sa taong 2000, nasabi ko sa kanila at sa aking mga kasama sa SHELL na hindi ko puputulin ang aking buhok para lagi ng maala-ala ng lahat na may mga kawaning patuloy na nagnanais ng katinuan sa PERFECT ATTENDANCE SCHEME. Bago pa po lubusang humaba ang buhok ko, Year 2003, sinibak na po ako.
9.2 Ang aking pong INQUIRY sa nawawalang minutes of CBA negotiations meetings na kung saan pinag-usapan ang paksang pang - economic o pasuweldo ay hindi rin po nabigyang halaga at lubusang pag-aararal ng mga pinagdaanang hukuman.
Na, kung ito po ay nabigyan daan na busisiin, matutunghayan po nila, na itong natapos na CBA ay punong-puno ng hinihinalang anomalya at controversiya, dahil sa bukod sa itinago nila ang minutes tungkol dito ay, inalisan pa nila nang dalawang NON-OFFICER union member na tumatayong bantay o witness sa negotiation. Ang TRANSPARENCY sa gaganaping negotiation ay alam naming mga kasapi sa unyon na KAILANGAN kaya po ninais naming makapag-formulate ng GROUND RULES for the CONDUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS silang mga opisyales ng unyon at management panel. Kasama po rito ang requirement ng MINUTES at dalawang NON-OFFICER union member bilang witness . Ang GROUND RULES pong ito ay hiniling naming mga kasapi sa unyon, naisulat at napagkasunduan at sinunod ng buong husay noong pag-usapan ay non-economic benefits, ngunit noong pag-usapan ang pasueldo, ay nabalutan ito ng hinihinalang kabuktutan at misteryo. Ang kaganapang ito ay nagbunsod ng matinding pagdududa sa kadalisayan, kalinisan ng ginanap na negotiation. Lalo pa nga po, noong makalipas ang isa O dalawang linggo na matapos ang CBA ay pinagkalooban ng SHELL ng isang marangyang piging ang mga opisyal ng unyon sa isang kilalang Hotel sa Makati. Ganoon din po, makalipas ang isa O dalawang buwan, ang dalawa pong mataas na lider ng unyon ay pumunta sa SINGAPORE at sa THAILAND na company sponsored trip, sinabi po nilang seminar o training. Marami pong lalo ang naghihinala sa mga misteryong nakapaloob dito at sila ay nagsimulang magsiyasat at magtanong-tanong at ang pormal na INQUIRY ay sinimulan ko. Dapat sana ay natuklasan ang dahilan kung bakit na kung kailan na mayroong INQUIRY o pagsisiyasat sa maaring pandaraya o kabuktutan naganap sa nakatapos na CBA negotiations, kung kailan naman ako tinanggal sa trabaho. Hindi kaya nais lamang ng kumpanya na matigil na itong pagsisiyasat sa dahilang baka matuklasan ang kanilang mga pagkakasala at natakot sa kanilang pananagutan kapag ang mga iyon ay napatunayan.
At upang mahinto ang INQUIRY ay naisip nilang tangalin ako. Sinibak nga nila ako.
9.3 Lubos rin po, ang aming pagtataka nang ang mga suliraning pang-unyon ay kinaligtaan nang harapin ng mga lider ng unyon, tulad ng suliranin ng ilang kawani na pinagkaitang pagkalooban ng PRB(performance related bonus) at ang napapabalitang tanggalan sa trabaho.
Wala silang ginawa para tulungan ang mga kawawang kasapi upang ipagtanggol ang mga karapatan ng mga ito.
9.4 Manapay, magkahalong pagtataka at pagdududa ang nabubuo sa aming mga damdamin nang may isang kasapi na naglakas loob na simulan o gawin ang mga hakbang upang ang mga suliraning iyon ay lutasin, ay siya pa nila itong ginipit, sinikil at pinabayaan, pinagkaitan ng kanyang karapatan sa "due process", (his petition for maximum salary rate adjustment was deliberately ignored, no hearing about his petition was ever conducted inspite of his persistent follow-ups) at nang ang kawaning ito ay tanggalin, ang mga lider na iyon ay hindi kumilos upang ang karapatang iyon at ang "job security of tenure" ng pobreng kasapi ay ipagtanggol.
9.5 Bago po maganap ang KONTOBERSYAL CBA NEGOTIATION MEETING tungkol sa pasueldo ay nakikita namin ang lubos na katapatan sa tungkulin ang mga sinasabing punong opisyales ng unyon. Ngunit, nang muli silang humarap sa amin matapos ang pagpupulong na naganap sa kung saang yungib ng kadiliman, ay ang mga kasapi na ngayon ang mistulang kanilang kalaban. Hindi po naming mapaniwalaan na kayang tanggapin ng kanilang mga konsyensa na gamitin nila ang kanilang kapangyarihan sa pansarili nilang kapakinabanagan, tulad ng pagkakaloob sa kanilang mga sarili ng taas sa sueldong 10% ng kanilang mas malalaking basic pay, habang may mga kasaping maliit na nga ang basic pay, ay nabigyan lang ng 3% . Ang panglalamang o panggugulang na ito ay labis ang naging pasakit sa mga kasaping nasa mas mabababang posisyon na lubhang naapi sa pagkakataong iyon. Dahil roon ako ay gumawa ng isang tula, alay ko sa mga kaawa-awang inapi ng mga pinunong inaakala nila na mangangalaga ng kanilang karapatan. Heto po ang tula:
KATIPUNAN SA BAGONG PANAHON
1
Naalaala mo pa ga, si Andres Bonifacio ?
Pilipino taga Tondo, sa Katipunan siya ang Supremo
Matatawa ka kung isang tulad nito
Ang wikain niya sa mga tao:
2
May tig-isang cedula tayo
Ang akin pupunitin ko
Punitin rin ninyo ang sa inyo
Sa labanang sasabanahin natin
Kontra sa mga Kastilang mapang-alipin
Eh, maagaw natin ang kaldero ng kanin,
Tandaan ninyo ang aking bilin:
Sa inyo ang bahaw, sa akin ang bagong saing.
Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo!
Sa palakat na usbaw at sirang ulo.
3
Eh, paano naman Supremo ang pang-ulam
Siempre pag may kanin dapat may pang-ulam
Halimbawa po ay isda, tulad ng galunggong
Ang sagot niya ay "Tinatanong pa ba iyan ?
Natural akin ang katawan, sa inyo ang ulo, buntot at tiyan."
Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo!
Sa tonong sinto-sinto at mukhang naloko.
4
Bakit naman po galunggong, cheap naman po noon.
May Kastila ga namang kumakain ng galunggong?
Siempre wala kundi makolesterol na litson.
Ani ng Supremo, "Aba, eh, madali iyan".
Sabay ang kayat ang laway.
"Sa akin ang kalamnan at sipsipin ninyo,
Ang mga buto-buto at ang pantuhog na kawayan."
Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo!
Sa tunog na uto, at parang nagoyo.
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
21September2001.
10. Ang pagpapahalaga sa mga naging pagtrato sa akin sa mga panahong 2002, bago ako tanggalin ay hindi rin nabigyang pag-aaral at pag-unawa, na sana ay natuklasan nila na ang pagtanggal sa akin ay bunga ng isang matinding galit na personal.
10.1 Nabulagan po ang mga hukom ng mas nakakababang hukuman nang hindi nila napagtanto na ang itinatagong matinding galit ay ipinadama ng kumpanya sa akin noon hindi nila recognize o kinong-gratualate man lamang ang aking anak o ako noong mag-top 1 ang aking anak noon sa APRIL 2002 ELECTRONICS and COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING BOARD EXAM, sa kabila ng katotohanang ang batang ito, si Mosses Buensuceso, ay mula high school at hanggang sa college ay scholar ng SHELL. Ito ay sakabila ng katotohanan na nagbunyi ang mga kawani ng refinery, nagsalo-salo sa kung ilang galong ice cream ang bawat department hanggang sa ADMINISTRATION noong araw na iyon .
10.2 Dagdag pa rito ay ang pagwi- withdrawal of payment ng PERFORMANCE RELATED BONUS kay Ritchie Coronel , isang resignee, noong malaman na ako ay tiyuhin nito, at ako ang tatanggap ng bonus na iyon para sa kanya.
10.3 Hindi rin napag-ukulan ng pansin ang ginawang tahasang pagbabale-wala ng kumpanya sa aking karapatan sa due process. Naglapit po ako ng petisyon para sa salary adjustment base sa long years of service tulad ng tinanggap ng kapwa ko ka-level sa position na kawani, na nabigyan sila ng maximum rate of increase, 10% , base sa kanilang 16 years of service, na hindi base sa kanilang mas nakabababang position. Nararapat lamang na ako ay bigyan din ng ganoong consideration sa dahilang kung sila ay may 16 years of service, ako ay mas lalong higit na mahabang panahon ng serbisyo na 24 years. Hiniling ko po sa petisyon ko kay Mr. Bing Veneracion, process manager, na bigyan rin ako ng gayong pagtrato at nangako po siyang tatalakayin iyon sa LMC meeting. Ngunit, hindi po nila iyon ginawa, hindi na iyon pinagusapan, kahit sa patuloy kong pakikiusap at follow-up. Sa Ingles po ang aking "right to due process was deliberately denied". Personal pong galit ang malinaw na dahilan ng ganitong pagtrato sa akin.
10.4 Nagkulang rin ng mainam na pagsusuri ang nakakababang hukuman na, galit rin ang nagbunsod sa kumpanya para hiyain ako sa harap ng aking mga kapwa kawani, mga kaibigan at pamilya noong ituring ng kumpanya na ako ay poorest work performer, sa pamamagitan ng kanyang mga supervisor na nagsagawa ng "rating" na alam nilang sa isang kawani, katulad ko, na may mataas na pagpapahalaga sa aking karangalan, dignidad at integredad ay labis - labis na nasasaktan sa ginawang pagpataw sa aking pagkatao bilang poorest work performer. Ngunit, hindi lang nila ako sinabihang poorest work performer, at ipinangalandakan pa nila ang kanilang panglalait sa akin noong ang bagay na ito ay kanilang isulat at isapubliko at ipinaalam sa lahat, at gawin pa nilang katibayan ng dahilan upang ako ay tanggalin. Sobra-sobra ang naging dulot nitong sakit at pagdurusa sa akin. Hindi lang nila ako inalisan ng trabaho, winasak ang karangalan ko, at tinanggalan pa nila ako ng maayos na pagkakataong makatagpo muli ng ibang trabaho gamit ang 24 na taon kong karanasan sa industriya. Ano pa po ba kaya ang magbubunsod sa isang kumpanya ang gawin ang mga bagay na iyon sa akin, kundi isang hayag na galit na personal?
10.5 Dagdag pa dito, ang aking bunsong anak, si Miriam Buensuceso, ay isang SHELL high school scholar, ay may natitira pang isang taong scholarship, matapos akong alisin sa aking trabaho. Ngunit, itong natitira pang isang taong scholarship na tulong sa tuition fees at monthly allowance ay ipinagkait na rin sa akin. Ang company policy ukol dito ay hindi na malilingid sa aking kaalaman sa kung ilang taon ring ipinagkatiwala sa akin, ni Ka Butch Bautista, isang mas naunang nagretirong kawani, kapwa ko taga-Bauan, na may dalawang anak na parehong iskolar, ang pagtanggap ng kanilang tuiton at buwanang allowance, na dalawa o tatlong taon kong ginampanan para sa kanila. Ngunit, ang ganoong parehong pagtingin at pagtrato ay ipinagkait sa akin. Hindi ko po agad ito naisama sa aking "complaint" sa dahilan pong ako ay umaasa na iyon ay maari pang ipakiusap, ngunit, sa kasamaang palad hindi na po ako napagbigyan.
10.6 Ang mamahalin pong orasang pagkamay na ibinibigay bilang regalo sa mga nagreretirong mga kawani na may mahabang panahon ng paglilingkod ay hindi rin po ibinigay at tuluyan na pong ipinagkait sa akin. Hindi po ba ang mga bagay na ito at ang mga nauna nang nabanggit ay labis-labis na katibayan ng matinding galit na personal sa akin, na nararapat na bigyang pahalaga at masusing pag-aaral ? Na kung lubusang pinag-aralan ay lilitaw na "ill-motives" ng kumpanya ang dahilan kung bakit nila ako tatanggalin at hindi dahil ng kabulaanang REDUNDANCY, na sinasabi ng kumpanya ?
11. Dapat pong unawain ng lahat, Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, na ang sinasabing katwiran ng kumpanya na ang tinatawag na "management prerogatives" ay may hangganan. Ang karapatan pong ito ay nagwawakas kapag ito ay lumalampas, o di lubusang sumunod sa itinatagubilin ng batas o dili kaya ay lumalabag sa sinasaad sa sama-samang kasunduan sa pag-gawa o collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
11.1 Ang kumpanya bagamat nakasunod sa requirement ng notice sa DOLE at pagsulat sa akin na nagsaad ng pagtangal sa akin ay hindi po natin kakikitaan ng katapatan at katotohanan sa sinasabi nilang kadahilanan ng pagtanggal sa akin. Maalaala po natin na sinabi nila na "financial difficulties" na sanhi ng OIL DEREGULATION LAW ang dahilan kung bakit sila magsasara ng planta at magbabawas ng kawani. Tulad po ng naipaliwanag na, ang batas pong ito ay hindi kailanman naging pasanin ng mga taga-industriya ng langis, sa kabaligtaran ang batas na ito ay nagsisilbing kalasag o protection laban sa anumang pagkalugi sa kanilang pagnenegosyo.
11.2 Ang kumpanya, totoo mang nagsarado ng isang lumang planta, PROCESS-2, ay nagbukas naman ng bago na aking tinawag na BITUMEN PLANT, na tinawag naman nilang BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY. Katotohanan pong nagsara sila ng planta, nagbawas ng kawani at katotohanan rin pong nagbukas ng bagong planta at nag- emplyeo ng mga bagong kawani.
Sa ganitong mga kaganapan papaanong masasabi nila na ako ay magiging kalabisan sa dami ng kailangan nila ? Malinaw pong natunghayan natin salat po sa katotohanan at wastong katuwiran ang REDUNDANCY PROGRAM ng kumpanya.
11.3 Ang kumpanya, sa pagnanais na patunayan ang pagsasara ng planta, ay isinalarawan pa niya ang DEMOLITION nito, sinaad kung sinong contractor ang gagawa nito at kung gaanong kalaking halaga ang ginugol dito. Pero sa halip itong makatulong sa kanila ay lalong higit itong naging katibayan ng kanilang kasinungalingan. Dahil dito sa mga dokumentong ito na ang SHELL mismo ang nagpakita sa usaping ito, ay natambad ang katibayan na hindi totoong dumaranas ang SHELL ng financial difficulties. Maniniwala po ba kayong may financial difficulties ang isang kumpanya na gumastos ng Php129,950,000.00 para sa isang demolition lang? Ang CALTEX po, na ginamit rin ng kumpanya na halimbawa na nagsara rin nga ng lumang planta, ngunit, ang DEMOLITION ay hindi nila naging option. Napapansin po natin na ang mga sandatang inilalabas nila ay siya rin mismong mga sandatatang pumapatay sa kanila. Habang nais nilang ikubli ang kanilang kabulaanan ay lalo namang lumilitaw ang katotohanan.
11.4 Sa pagawaan upang matamo ang lubusang kapayapaan, Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, ay itinakda ng batas ang pagkakaroon ng kasunduan ang mga kawani at ang mga namamahala ng pagawaan. Ang kasunduang ito na tinawag na COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT o CBA , na nararapat lamang sundin at isapuso ng magkabilang panig at sinuman ang may gawing paglabag sa itinatadhana rito ay may pananagutan sa batas. Mangyari pong bigyan ko ng diin ang JOB SECURITY PROVISION ng aming CBA: " TASREA (the union) recognizes the right of the company to contract out work, however, no employee shall suffer loss of employment on account of the contracted out work. " Tinatangap ng unyon na mangontrata ng trabaho ang kumpanya, kaya nga lamang ay, walang kawani ang magdurusa sa pagkawala ng trabaho dahil sa ipinakontratang trabaho. Yan po ang saktong salin mula sa Ingles tungo sa wika natin. Ibig sabihin po ba niyan ay hayaan naming tanggalin kami sa trabaho habang itong trabaho namang ito ay ipinakokontrata ng SHELL ? Wala po silang pananagutan kung ang provision na iyon ay hindi nila igalang ? Para ano pa po, na tinawag itong JOB SECURITY PROVISION kung hindi nito mapangalagaan ang aming security of tenure. Bakit pinagkasunduan at isinulat pa kundi rin lang bibigyan pahalaga? Papaano pong makapagsasabi ang SHELL ng REDUNDANCY habang ang mg trabahong ginagawa namin ay kanilang ipinakokontrata? Yan po isang malinaw na paglabag sa aming kasunduan at ang REDUNDANCY ay isang malaking kabulaanan.
11.5 Gaya po, pambungad na pananalita sa bilang 11, ang "management prerogatives" ay may hangganan. Hindi po maaring gamitin ang "management prerogatives" kung ito ay magdudulot ng ibayong pinsala, kahihiyan at pagkawasak ng dignidad ng isang kawani. Ang ginawang "rating" ng kumpanya sa aking pagtupad ng tungkulin at ang pangangalandakan at pagsasapubliko ng naturang rating, at ang pagkakait sa aking bigyang daan ang isang hearing para sa aking petisyon para sa salary rate adjustment, bagaman ito ay mga "management prerogatives" ngunit hindi naman sumunod sa itinatadhana ng "1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, Art. II : Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 11" na nagsabi ng ganito : "The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights." Ibig sabihin nito ay pinahahalagahan ng estado ang dignidad ng bawat tao ang pangangalagaan nito ang lubusang pag-galang sa karapatang pantao. Ang intentional na hindi pagdinig sa petisyon for salary adjustment at ginawang "performance rating" ng mga supervisor na sunod sunuran lang nais mangyari ng namamahala ay lubhang nagpakita ng walang pakundangang pag-gamit ng "management prerogatives" ay nagbunga ng pagyurak sa aking karapatang pantao ; pagsira sa aking pagkatao, dignidad at kawalan ng pagkakataong makatagpo muli ng trabaho gamit ang parehong karanasan sa industriya ng langis. Nararapat lamang na ito ay bigyan ng katarungan at patawan ng tumpak na kaparusahan o penalty ang panig na may kagagawan nito.
Karagdagan pa rito ay ang katotohanang bukod sa sunod sunurang supervisor ang gagawa ng "rating" ay alam ng SHELL na hindi ako makakakilos upang depensahan ang aking sarili dahil sa naipabatid ko na sa kanila na iligal ang redundancy program ng kumpanya at ang pag-gawa ng rating ay bunga ng isang iligal na kadahilanan, na magiging bunga noon ay isang bagay na iligal din. Alam nilang hindi ako makakakontra o maka-ayon sa pag-gawa ng rating. Dahil sa alam nila na di-lingid sa akin na iyon ay isang patibong, na ang aking pakikilahok ay " would ligitimize the redundancy program". Sinamantala nila ang pagkakataon; nilait na nila ako ng walang kalaban-laban. Inuulit ko po, ang paggawa nila ng rating, bukod sa intensyong hiyain ako, ay may kaakibat na patibong na kung sakaling magkamali akong depensahan ang aking sarili ay magiging sanhi iyon ng aking lubusang partisipasyon sa paggawa ng rating at mangangahulugan nang pagtanggap ko sa legalidad ng redundancy program na sa totoo lang ay iligal na sa simula pa lamang. Tiniis ko na lang po, Kagalangalang na Chief Justice, Your Honors, ang kahihiyan kaysa sa ako ay mapaglalangan.
11.6 Atin pong suriin, Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, Your Honors, noong ako ang piliing tanggalin sa trabaho na, ang dahilan ay poorest work performer ako, at ibinigay nila sa akin ang aking RETIREMENT PAY. Makalipas ang may ilang buwan ay binigyan naman nila ako ng PERFORMANCE RELATED BONUS. Ang bonus pong ito ay ibinigay dahil sa maganda po ang aking job performance. Papaano pong kung totoo ang job performance rating na ginawa ng mga supervisor na poorest work performer ako, ay bakit pa binigyan ako ng PERFORMANCE RELATED BONUS ganong marami ang nagrereklamo na hindi nabigyan nito? Inconsistent, hindi po ba?
Lumilitaw po ang katotohanang ginawa ang rating na may intensyon na idiin lang, na ako ang nararapat alisin. Dahil dito ay lubos akong naniniwala sa ipinagtapat sa akin ng ilang supervisor na malalapit sa akin, na buong kahihiyan humingi ng paumanhin sa akin na wala silang magawa kundi sundin kung ano ang utos ni boss, na ako ang dapat maalis. Sila ay pawang tulad ni Pontio Pilato na naghugas ng kanilang mga kamay, wala silang kasalanan sa naging bunga ng pag-gawa ng rating na iyon. Hindi po ako nagalit o naghinanakit sa kanila, inunawa ko po ang katayuan nila. Magkaganoon man mga kaibigan pa rin ang turing ko sa kanila.
12. Sa panahon po ngayong nagugumon ang ating bayan sa umaalingasaw na kabulukan sa mga sistema ng lipunan at pamahalaan, tigmak sa mga kaganapang nalalampungan ng dambuhalang korupsyon at kabuktutan, na noong bandang nakaraan ay hindi ko lubos na paniwalaan na tunay na nagaganap sa ating bayan, hanggang sa unti-unting pag-usad ng panahon, pagkatapos sa aking mapait na karanasan na dinanas ko sa mga pinuno ng kumpanya at ng aming unyon noong panahong iyon at maging sa mga pinagdaanang hukuman ng asuntong ito ay napagtanto ko na ang dambuhalang nabanggit ko ay mukhangkumikilos upang lapain ako; kumikilos habang ang natitirang huling pintig ng aking pag-asa ay tuluyan nang maglaho at ang huling pako para sa kabaong na pinag-silidan ng katotohanan at katarungan na matagal ko nang inasam-asam at ipinaglaban ay nakaambang itusok na. Opo, Kagalang-galang na Chief Justice, Your Honors, nakaambang itutusok na. Kagalang-galang na Chief Justice, mga Huwes na bumubuo sa Bantayog ng Katarungan ng ating dakilang bayang Pilipinas, na pinagbuwisan ng pawis, luha at dugo ng mga taong nagpakabayaning tumayo at nahandusay sa ngalan ng katarungan, sa kapakanan ng ating bayan, ang pagpapakumbaba pong paki-usap ko : Pagpaumanhinan na po ninyo ang aking munting pagkukulang at sa halip ay malasin ninyo, una, ang pagsusumikap ng aming buong mag-anak na ipaglaban ang aking karapatan sa abot ng aming makakayanan, sa kabila ng mga balakid at ikalawa, ang mga katotohanang naging sanhi ng petisyong ito. Minamahal kong Chief Justice, ngayong pagkakataong ito ay bumubukal sa ngilid ng aking mga mata ang butil butil na luha na habang pumapatak sa aking dibdib tapat ng aking puso ay nasambit ko ang dalangin sa Diyos na Makapangyarihan na sana ang mga luhang ito ay magsilbing panghugas sa mga limatik na nalikha ng dambuhalang korupsyon at kabuktutan. Naway ang mga luhang ito ay maging pandilig at magbigay buhay muli sa ilang mga halaman sa Hardin ng Katarungan na tinuyot, sinalanta ng tampalasang dambuhalang korupsyon at kabuktutan.
Minamahal na Chief Justice at Kagalanggalang na mga Hukum, muli po ang aking paala-ala, ang kabaong na nais nilang lagyan ng huling pako at ilagak sa kailaliman ng lupa ay naglalaman ng HINDI PATAY kundi BUHAY na mga KATOTOHANAN. Mga KATOTOHANAN na nagpupumilit sumigaw ng katarungan na sa kasalukuyan ay nabusalan ng mga taong marunong bumasa at nakaririnig, ngunit hindi nakakaunawa at nagbibingibingihan; mga dalubhasa, ngunit nagmamaang-maangan.
Ang samo ko po, iligtas po natin ang KATOTOHANAN.
Kagalagalang na Chief Justice at Kapitapitagang mga Huwes ng First Division ng Supreme Court, sana po naman ay pagbigyan ninyo ang aking mga hinaing. Sana po ay muli pong mapag-aralan ang asuntong ito na busog sa katotohanan at merito.
Bilang pangwakas, Mahal na Chief Justice, Your Honors, mangyari pong ibahagi ko sa inyo ang ilang aral mula sa po sa Holy Bible, JOHN 8:31 to 32 :
31 To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, " If you hold on to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Tunay po, ang katotohanan, TRUTH, ang magpapalaya sa atin, wala pong pagdududa tayo roon, NGUNIT , kung ang KATOTOHANAN ang siyang may busal at nakagapos, paano pa kaya tayong mapapalaya nito? Kung siya po ang siyang bilanggo, sino pa pong magpapalaya sa atin? Ang samo ko po ay, tanggalin po natin ang kanyang gapos at siya palayain. Iligtas po natin ang KATOTOHANAN, para po sa akin, sa aming mag-anak, sa mga kawawang kawani ng SHELL, sa mga manggagawa, sa INANG BAYAN NATING PILIPINAS at higit sa lahat, alang-alang sa DIYOS NA PINAKAMAKAPANGYARIHAN SA LAHAT.
Marami pong salamat.
Lubos na gumagalang,
ANTONIO L. BUENSUCESO JR.
Petitioner
mga pinagkalooban ng sipi:
1. Hon. Reynato Puno
CHIEF JUSTICE
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA
2. Hons. Justices of the FIRST DIVISION
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA (8 COPIES)
3.
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
4. NLRC
5. Atty. Raul Quiros
156 Valero St.
Makati City
6. Angara etc. Law firm
7. Hon. Francis 'Chiz' Escudero
SENATOR
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
8. PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
Editorial Board
9. MIKE ENRIQUEZ
IMBESTIGADOR
GMA NEWS
10. HENRY OMAGA DIAZ
XXX
ABS-CBN News
11. Commission on Human Rights
12. Integrated Bar of the Philippines
13. DEAN
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
14. PRESIDENT
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
15. PRESIDENT
Kilusang Mayo Uno
16. Other News Organizations and
Other Cause Oriented Groups
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
