Grażyna Hanaf: – What is the conflict with the staff about from your perspective?
Małgorzata Dłużyk: – For many years, while serving as director (it will be ten years this December), I have looked after my employees. I support those who study and have families, and everything was going well. Until this spring, we were a well-integrated staff.
I was very surprised when a trade union was formed, which I was informed about at the beginning of May. It was established to negotiate the pay regulations, which were to be changed in accordance with the new Act on Local Government Employees from November last year. The regulation imposed an obligation on the employer to adapt the pay regulations by 30 June this year. I attended training sessions and intended to do this at the end of June. However, in May the “Solidarity” trade union was formed, and I had to agree the wording of the regulations with it.
Unfortunately, despite many meetings, no agreement was reached. In September, a second union, “Konfederacja Pracy”, was formed, and as a result I had to wait for a joint position from both organisations. No such position was developed within the required thirty days, and on 29 October I introduced new regulations.

Why was the second trade union formed?
I think it was because the atmosphere at work had become unpleasant, and the prolonged negotiations concerning the regulations had not been understood by the other employees. That is why they decided to establish ZZ “Konfederacja Pracy”, so that they could also influence the wording of the regulations.

Were the pay regulations the only contentious issue?
In August there was a “Black T-Shirt” campaign. Several days earlier, an employee asked me for permission to hold the campaign. It was intended to draw attention to the lack of an act regulating the profession of social worker. And if the protest had concerned only that issue, I would have put on a black T-shirt myself. But I read in the leaflet that it also drew attention to the fact that social workers earn little. I did not consent to open letters being displayed in the centre’s corridors, because I believe that not only social workers but also other employees earn little.
Please believe me that I appealed to the Mayor for pay rises for my employees. Employees do not know about all the steps I take as an employer. I have repeatedly explained to employees that the budget is what it is. The remuneration fund is untouchable and cannot be either reduced or increased, except by resolution of the City Council. The Mayor cannot provide extra funds for one institution, because other organisational units would immediately line up.

Putting on a black T-shirt, or not putting one on, does not cause such an escalation of the conflict as a collective dispute, does it?
I will put it this way. I have a legal opinion dated 4 November from an independent lawyer. In response to the question of whether a collective dispute exists at MOPS in Bolesławiec, he states, and I quote: “There is no collective dispute at MOPS.”

On what basis did the lawyer issue that opinion?
On the basis of the letters I exchanged with ZZ “Solidarność”. In the first letter, dated 6 October, “Solidarność” demanded:

  • Ensuring safe working conditions for employees.
  • Regulating the matter of employees’ professional promotion.
  • Adapting the remuneration regulations to the applicable provisions.
  • Facilitating professional development for all employees.
  • Ceasing unequal treatment, especially of employees affiliated with the ZZ.
  • Paying a minimum 6% indexation increase to every employee from April 2009.
  • Managing aid funds rationally.

In my reply to the union, I explained that its demands were presented as slogans and were too general for me to address. In addition, the demand concerning the remuneration regulations was being implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions. The demand for indexation could not be met because the remuneration fund had insufficient funds. I also enabled employees to attend training. In 2008, 31 people took part; in 2009, 26 people so far.
I regard the accusations of unequal treatment of union members as defamatory and liable to cause me to lose the trust required in my position. The right to criticise must not be abused; I expect the accusations to be specified on the basis of concrete facts, which would enable me to respond to them.
The unions decided that, in their view, my reply was an attempt to circumvent the collective-dispute procedure, and informed me that they were ready to begin negotiations at any time. I believe that unions should be the employer’s partner, as in a marriage. A husband and wife must reach an agreement, because the employees, who are our children, are probably suffering because of this conflict. Dialogue is necessary, but if it is said that we are in dispute, the question arises: about what?
It was absolutely not my intention to circumvent the collective-dispute procedure. Once again, I asked in writing for the demands to be specified in writing. Paper is paper. Having already gained experience from previous discussions that our statements were understood ambiguously, specifying the demands in writing was intended to promote better understanding and protect the interests of both sides.
I set 15 October at 10:30 as the deadline for delivering such a letter. I assumed that the unions would not have it prepared in writing and would prefer to talk, so I suggested an early hour so that the employees could write down the demands during working hours.

Did that happen?
The union members did not prepare specified demands in writing. To make it easier for them, I suggested that they do so in the deputy director’s office during working hours. The union representatives refused and demanded that the discussions be recorded on a dictaphone.

Why the need to record it on a dictaphone? Where did that idea come from? Was there some fear that the content of the discussions and their words might be changed?
I think it was easier for them to record something and then prepare minutes from it.

And in such a tense situation, wouldn’t it have been easier to let them do it?
Yes. But when I do not have time, I cannot afford to write down the essence of statements from recordings, so I suggested that the union members sit down and precisely write out their demands during working hours.

Did the union members accept that proposal?
No, the women refused. And on 27 October I received another letter calling for negotiations in connection with the ongoing collective dispute. I replied again that I urgently expected specific accusations defining what the collective dispute was to concern.
Until spring, the atmosphere at our centre had been very good; the door to my office was open more often than closed. I believe that we spend a great deal of time at work and, if we can avoid making life more difficult and bitter for one another, why do it? We really were a very integrated group, and I care about keeping it that way. Therefore, despite everything, I called the Ministry and then sent all the documents concerning the matter, asking for a mediator to be appointed if appropriate. The matter is ongoing.__ISTOT_MARKUP_CONTENT_000074__

After such a storm, how do you see a way out of the conflict? Some of the staff are fighting fiercely. There are 29 people out of a staff of 65 in ZZ “Solidarność”. How do you see further cooperation with these people? Will it be easy for the director?
It is difficult for me to say. I have never been in such a situation. However, I can say about myself that in conflict situations I have a short memory. It may be that someone has taken offence or become stubborn because they are convinced they are doing the right thing, and when others tell them they are doing wrong, they continue doing the same. I do not want to hurt anyone. I am willing to talk. If something is wrong, changes can be made. We could go away together somewhere outside the city to gain some distance. It is important for both sides to understand the purely human aspects of this matter.
The lawyers and I agree that there is no dispute. I care about everyone as individuals. About the atmosphere at work, my health and my condition. I believe that the accusations made by the union are empty slogans.

If the legal documents show that there is no dispute, how should this conflict that has arisen be explained?
I think it results from dissatisfaction with social workers’ pay. Although it is not very low compared, for example, with Grudziądz, since the average salary of a social worker is PLN 2,384 gross. The fact is that working at a budgetary institution is not a well-paid job. It is like someone going to London and being unhappy that it is foggy. At a local-government institution, the employer pays regularly, but the amount may not be satisfactory. Many people at the centre were dissatisfied with their pay and changed jobs.

After mediation, will you still be able to manage the institution with the same team without worrying that something will cause another conflict?
I am ready for dialogue, and an employee must understand where they work and that pay at a local-government institution is what it is.
Social workers receive additional funding from the state budget (in the form of a monthly gross allowance of PLN 250 for field social work), so perhaps, like nurses or miners, they should go to Warsaw and ask for more. Social workers receive 10 additional days of leave once every two years because of the difficult nature of their work. Let them go to Warsaw and ask for a month of leave. My budgetary institution does not generate financial resources. What more can I do when I receive slogans and catchphrases? The other side should now demonstrate goodwill.
Unfortunately, I increasingly think that the conflict is being fuelled by several employees out of ordinary antipathy and anger that they cannot overcome or conceal. Expressing it under the banner of a trade union is convenient for them. I understand that there are no perfect people. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses – me included. Until now, we had worked well together for many years, and I would still like the former atmosphere to return. But for that to happen, both sides must show goodwill – not just me.