Posts Tagged ‘case of bullying’

Open letter from Sedika Weingaertner to Dr. Peter Löscher, Siemens CEO

8. Juli 2010

Sedika Weingärtner is at the moment the most famous victim of bullying in germany (1). Her fight against bullying is very importnat for all victims of war at the workplace in germany today. Here letters to the CEO Dr. Peter Löscher of Siemens is an evident of history in the struggle aginst Mobbing.

„Dear Dr. Loescher

At long last I have decided to write an open letter to you in order to remind you of a public scandal to the development of which you have, in my eyes, made a great contribution.

In my letter of 21 September 2008 I had informed you of my situation and of the harassment in your firm.

My letter of 6 February 2009 informed you of developments since. I asked you to bring in an external arbiter to do justice apparently this was not to your liking.

On 16 February, I asked you again to concern yourself with my case of bullying.

On 9 April, I informed you of my being sent on leave, an over-reaction, and of the entirely illegal misuse of my e-mail account, along with infringement of my individual rights. You, the Chief Executive of Siemens, remained inactive. Your executives acted, to the best of their belief, according to your intentions, until I was dismissed, without being given prior warning. I cannot see how this procedure cold be described as proper, as far as I am given to understand present European Employment Law.

For 8 years I strictly played according to the rules and in writing informed the people in charge within the company on the circumstances. All the time Siemens kept silent about the matter — now, after those eight years, as the case has come to public notice, suddenly nothing is acknowledged to have happened. The question is why Siemens AG never reacted or just answered my letters? I do not wish to suppose that the gentlemen agreed on a cover-up among themselves and never surmised that the advisory board might some day learn of all this or that information might reach the public?

Above all, this dismissal is void because regulations of job protection have not been adhered to.

Dear Dr Loescher, I am referring to a kind of mobbing which has found its way beyond the workplace into court and public and which is to have no ending.

15 months after my first letter to you of September 21 2008, Siemens AG tried to supply a reason, fabricated in hindsight, for firing me, and they did so right in court on January 20 2010 to divert the public’s attention from my unlawful dismissal.

I view the accusation of so-called Holocaust Denial by Siemens as a character assassination.

My question to you is this: Would it be necessary for a globally acting company to resort to such measures, if that company had, in its own estimate, justly acted according to law over the dismissal?

 Siemens chooses this course to further inflame the resentments in society against immigrants, and to enrage the German people, who want to divorce themselves from the crimes of the Nazi era, and that at the cost of my reputation, so that the actual events, an improper dismissal from Siemens after years of harrassment, are not revealed.

The district attorney has stated, in writing, that no offence according to the Criminal Code § 130 StGB, Holocaust Denial, is present in my case.

They have also stated, in writing, that the attribution of holocaust denial by Siemes is a false accusation, such as may infringe on individual liberties.

As all Siemens, and you, know, the ultimate reason for my dismissal is not derogating the Holocaust but the consequence of my behaving according to law, in refusing my superior’s command to transfer business data from several suppliers to an unentitled third party. I could not act according to this command, and thus breaches of compliance within Siemens Ltd have brought misfortune on me. You will perhaps reply that internal Siemens investigations have led to no conclusion. May I remind you of another case when the Prosecutor obtained a conviction of Siemens for defrauding the state and – what a surprise, Siemens internal investigations had also produced no result.

Dear Mr. Loescher,

Siemens did not hesitate to send a journalist from the Stern magazine to my door without prior notice.

Is it permissible to open the dossier of an employee to Stern? To give Stern the free access to personal data, references and health-records of an employee? 

Is it honourable for Siemens to give 200,000 Euros to the publishers of Stern for writing on any theme, whether multiculturalism or not? I would then understand if gratitude caused Stern to feel it its duty to show Siemens in a better light.

That is give and take — but what is not acceptable is the infringement of the liberties of a third party and breach of data-protection, especially to the disadvantage of the victim.

What I do not understand is that the Siemens lawyer can present the well-received article, which has its origin in mutual collaboration with Siemens, to the court as evidence, combined with a wish to maintain a witness protection programme for Siemens employees, who do not wish to be identified, according to Stern, because they fear legal action.

Nobody is prosecuted without cause, although accusations can be misrepresentation and slander, damaging to the reputation and honour of the victim. If Siemens is so certain that no such risk exists in the present case, then of course any employee can express himself freely, even if it does not make much of a difference. Siemens should therefore refrain from instructing my colleagues, forbidding them to express themselves publicly.  My colleagues are faced with matters of employment law and, by permission of the Personnel Division, they should be able to speak out in public. It is surprising that two colleagues, having received this permission, chose to speak out, but did not want to be identified.

What is not acceptable is the naming of the victims, although colleagues, apparently selected and presented by Siemens, who are guaranteed witness protection by Stern. If the presiding Judge Froelich wishes to provide Siemens witness protection, it is also his duty to give it to the complainant. In that case Siemens employees who have shared my experience, would testify, to the probable number of four, since they would not then have to fear for their jobs: thus two against how many?

I quote Abraham Lincoln: „ You can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time; you cannot fool all the people all the time“

According to the media Siemens does not wish to comment on ongoing proceedings. In that case Siemens should not comment at all, in so far as Siemens spreads it about, we treat of a dismissal on grounds, which appeared out of thin air only 15 months after the dismissal took place.  It is also the case, whether Siemens chooses to comment or not, that you, Dr Loescher, are named as a witness in these proceedings. But perhaps nobody had told you of this hitherto.

Even allowing that none of the asssertions including „she was only a clerical worker“ are correct, does such evidence justify the harrassment in my case, which is now officially revealed by Siemens Plc.  According to this logic, with Siemens one may bully secretaries but not women-managers, but perhaps a secretary deserves less respect.

Why does Siemens find itself in danger of legal proceedings, if everything has been done according to law?

Siemens does not feel itself at fault, according to Stern. Responsible parties within Siemens Ltd are apparently unaware that circulation of personal data such as statements by and application forms of employees constitutes a blatant breach of national data-protection law.

Or, as might also be conceived, is this the continuation of harrassment that began in 2002 and has now found its way to the court-room, and that now, after alleging holocaust denial, wants to engage the pubic media?

Dear Mr. Loescher, why do you engage in an immoderate, immoral, and unjust battle against a woman who has done no more than obtain results for Siemens Ltd while doing her duty on a negligible salary.

A desperit colleague has made an appeal for help, and you, respected Dr Loescher, with a salary of 10 million Euros, did not find it necessary to concern yourself, quite on the contrary, you turned your fire on the little bird.

Do you enjoy cutting the floor from under the still-dependant children of your employees? Certainly, with an annual salary of some 10 million, you have no trouble providing for your children. But employees, dependent upon your offerings, do need security – security is not only intended for the strong.

Dear Mr. Loescher

I herewith request you to take up your responsibilities as head of Siemens Ltd and do everything possible to discontinue the slanderous measures which lead to public dishonour of my reputation; thus:.

1-   Withdrawal and cessation of accusations of holocaust denial

2-   Instruct your subordinates to refrain from the improper transmission of my personal and confidential data to third parties

3-   Desist from the targeted involvement of the media with the aim of providing copies of my personal documents, in order to influence the current legal

Considering my own proper interests within a society subject to law, I assure you I shall do whatever I can to carry the fight against this immoderate, immoral and unjust campaign throughout Germany, Europe and beyond.

Dear Dr Loescher. I am fighting for all employees; according to official figures, a fifth of all workers, that is 8 million people in Germany, experience bullying in the workplace. Some 3% of the workforce, that is 1.5 million human beings, have already fallen victim to it, at a cost to the state of 20 billion Euros.

Thus I would like to achieve improved circumstances for 25 million inhabitants of this country, so that protection  of personal liberty and human rights is guaranteed.

Therefore I warmly invite you, as one of the most powerful and respected men in Germany Plc to support my intentions, since virtuous acts can come only from virtuous  and mighty men.

It is rewarding to apply yourself to a good cause

Best Regards

Sedika Weingärtner“.(2)



Mobbingverbot für Richter und Staatsanwälte

20. Dezember 2009

Mobbingverbot für Richter und Staatsanwälte


Bei unseren Nachbarn aus Österreich hat man sehr schnell gelernt, welche Berufsgruppen man speziell im Fall von Mobbing mit einem selbigen Verbot besonders belegen muss. Da sind zum Beispiel die Richter und Staatsanwälte, eine Gruppe, die immer gerne meint, sie genieße besondere Rechte. Und diese Rechte nutzen nicht nur in Österreich die Staatsanwälte und Richter gerne zu Mobbingattacken.  

Mit der 2. Dienstrechts-Novelle 2009 hat nun Österreich ein vorbildliches Mobbingverbot für Richter uns Staatsanwälte. Man kann nur hoffen, dass das Mobbingverbot sich schnell auf alle Bereiche der Gesellschaft ausgedehnt wird, also auch für den privaten Sektor.  

Das Mobbingverbot für die „Götter in Schwarz“: „Achtungsvoller Umgang (Mobbingverbot) § 57a. 
 Achtungsvoller Umgang (Mobbingverbot) § 57a.Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern und als Mitarbeiterinnen oder Mitarbeiter ihren Vorgesetzten sowie einander mit Achtung zu begegnen und zu einem guten Funktionieren der dienstlichen Zusammenarbeitbeizutragen. Sie haben im Umgang mit ihren Kolleginnen und Kollegen sowie Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern Verhaltensweisen oder das Schaffen von Arbeitsbedingungen zu unterlassen, die derenmenschliche Würde verletzen oder dies bezwecken oder sonst diskriminierend sind“.


Richterinnen, Richter, Staatsanwältinnen und Staatsanwälte haben als Vorgesetzte ihren 3. § 69 Abs. 1 lautet:


„(1) Für die Richterinnen und Richter im Bereich einer Dienstbehörde erster Instanz ist ein Personalverzeichnis zu führen und den Richterinnen und Richtern, den Mitgliedern der Personalsenate sowie den ständig mit Personalangelegenheiten der Richter befassten Bediensteten möglichst in elektronischer Form zur Einsicht zur Verfügung zu stellen.“ (1)
Man kann Österreich und seinen Parlamentariern nur ein frohes und mobbingfreies Weihnachtsfest und ein gesundes und aktives neues Jahr 2010 wünschen und dass sie auch im EU-Parlament gegen Mobbing aktiv werden. Wir deutschen Mobbingopfern sind stolz auf unsere Nachbarn in Wien, insbesondere auch die Abgeordneten im österreichischen Parlament, von unsere Bundestagsabgeordneten kann man das nichts sagen. Man muss sich für ihr Nichts tun  und  Wegschauen im Fall von Mobbing einfach schämen. 
Die  englische Übersetzung, jetzt immer auf der aktuellen Antimobbingrundschau:



Täter in Schwarz


Our neighbors in Austria we have learned very quickly that you have to document special occupational groups in the case of bullying by a ban on that very special. There are, for example, the judges and prosecutors, a group that says the always happy, they enjoy special privileges. And these rights to benefit not only in Austria, the prosecutors and judges like to harassment attacks. 

With the 2nd Dienstrechts novella 2009 has now Austria is an exemplary Ban bullying prosecutors to judges us. One can only hope that the bullying prohibition is rapidly extended to all sectors of society, including the private sector. 

The prohibition of harassment for the „Gods in Black“: „Respectful treatment (bullying prohibition), § 57a.
Judges, magistrates, state attorneys and prosecutors have as their superiors 3. § 69 paragraph 1 reads: 


„(1) For the judges in a service authority of first instance is a list of staff and lead to the judges and magistrates, the members of the Senate and the staff constantly with personnel matters of the judges involved staff as possible in electronic form to make it at the disposal. „ 
One can only hope to Austria and its parliamentarians mobbingfreies Christmas and a Happy and a healthy and active year in 2010 and that they are also in the EU Parliament against bullying become active. German victims of bullying, we are proud of our neighbors in Vienna, in particular, the deputies in the Austrian Parliament, from our members of the Bundestag, one can say nothing. You have to un Nichtstund for turning a blind eye in the case of bullying simply ashamed.