Posts Tagged ‘Siemens’

Ablehnung des Richters wegen Verdachts auf Prozessbetrugs durch Sedika Weingärtner.

11. Juli 2010

Mobbing-Opfer

Mobbing-Opfer kennen das Problem, Arbeitsrichter denen Geheimdokumente zugespielt werden oder Richter die sich vorher stundenlang mit „Dritten“ abstimmen, welches Urteil gefällt werden soll. Im Mobbing-Fall Sedika Weingärtner liegt der Glücksfall vor, dass die Siemensmanagerin vertauliche Dokumente zu gespielt wurden. Unfassbar was sich Richter in diesem Land erlauben.

„Pressemitteilung  10. Juli 2010

Neues im Fall Weingärtner gegen Siemens

Ablehnung des Richters wegen Verdachts auf Prozeßbetrug sowie Verweigerung des Grundsatzes eines fairen Verfahrens nach dem Rechtstaatsprinzip.

Die Siemens Ex-Managerin hat den Arbeitsrichter Dr. F. am Arbeitsgericht Nürnberg wegen Verdachts auf Prozessbetrug sowie Verweigerung des Grundsatzes eines fairen Verfahrens nach dem Rechtstaatsprinzip abgelehnt.

Daraufhin hat das Gericht die für den Mittwoch 14 Juli 2010 vorgesehenen Gerichtstermine für die drei offenen Verfahren im Falle Weingärtner gegen Siemens von Amts wegen aufgehoben mit dem Hinweis „ein neuer Termin wird bekannt gegeben“.

Im Rahmen der Vorbereitung von Strafanzeigen gegen Jörn Roggenbuck, Siemens-Pressesprecher und Frau Sabine S., Personalreferentin bei Siemens Vogelweiherstraße, wegen eines Offizialdelikts (unbefugte Weitergabe der persönlichen und personenbezogenen Daten Frau Weingärtners an den „Stern“) zwecks Kooperation bei der Manipulation und Beeinflussung der Justiz, ist Frau Weingärtner auf ein vertrauliches Dokument gestoßen, das dem Richter vertrauensvoll zugespielt wurde. Dieses Dokument zeigt, dass es eine systematische Zusammenarbeit seit Februar 2010 zwischen Siemens, Siemens Anwalt, „Stern“ und möglicherweise auch dem Arbeitsrichter gegeben hat.

Anschließend wird ein „Pro Siemens Artikel“ im Stern Nr. 13 vom 25.03.2010, ganz wie von Siemens erwartet und von dort dem Richter F avisiert, veröffentlicht. Dieser Artikel soll Frau Weingärtner als Störenfried darstellen und zwei anonyme Hinweise aus dem Bericht sollen als Beweis dem Richter Dr. F. vorgelegt werden. Richter Dr. F  übernimmt eins zu eins alle Argumente der Siemens AG im Stern und fordert Frau Weingärtner nachträglich im Rahmen eines Hinweises auf, ihre beiden Klagen zurückzunehmen.

Frau Weingärtner ergriff die Möglichkeit einer Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde über den Richter und wandte sich mit einem Schreiben an den Präsidenten des Landesarbeitsgerichts Nürnberg Herrn Engelbert Heider.

Gegen Sabine. S, die Personalreferentin bei Siemens Vogelweiherstraße, und Jörn Roggenbuck, Siemens-Pressesprecher wurde bereits über die örtlich zuständige Kriminalpolizei eine Strafanzeige an die Staatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg veranlaßt.

Frau Weingärtner behält sich ebenfalls vor, diesen strafrechtlich relevanten Vorgang  entsprechend überprüfen zu lassen, gegebenenfalls eine Strafanzeige gegen die Parteien zu erstatten“. *

Für Hintergrundinformationen steht mein Büro den Medienvertretern zur Verfügung

Stefan M Prystawik PhD, Publicist, Treskowstr 7-9, 13156 Berlin, Germany, Tel:  +49 30 89677-9155, Fax:  +49 321 227733-800, Email: stefan@prystawik.net

Allgemeines zum Mobbing-Fall Sedika Weingärtner:

https://dieaktuelleantimobbingrundschau.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/sedika-weingartner-managerin-bei-siemens-wurde-7-jahre-lang-gemobbt/

http://www.taz.de/1/leben/alltag/artikel/1/mit-fuessen-getreten/

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/thema/Sedika_Weing%C3%A4rtner

http://www.welt.de/debatte/weblogs/Boess-in-Berlin/article6066389/Ein-Arbeitsplatz-schlimmer-als-der-Holocaust.html

http://www.sedika-weingaertner.org/open-letter-to-siemens-ceo-dr-loescher.html

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)

1)http://www.wdr.de/tv/servicezeit/familie/sendungsbeitraege/2010/0317/03_mobbingprozess.jsp

2)http://www.sedika-weingaertner.org/open-letter-to-siemens-ceo-dr-loescher.html

Siemens, BenQ, and the declaration of secrecy

21. April 2010

The legally-sanctioned destruction of reason?

Those who believed in work processes, it’s all about labor issues does not know what’s going on in German courtrooms so and what German companies now want to introduce even for special rights. Michael Gerber can sing that song and he just wanted to exercise his right to work, a constitutional law.

Bullying victims know their labor experience what Michael Gerber has behind him. 3 ½ years, in words, three and a half years of fighting for his dignity, work, unemployment and all were under a tremendous financial pressure because no income is lost very quickly the fight for his dignity.

In the end, Michael Gerber has prevailed, fortunately, although Siemens wanted to take him even the basic right to freedom of expression (Article 5, GG), a fact which shows that even Sedika Weingartner and could probably still to come.

In particular, the action of the ex-manager of a design process for all bullying victims in Germany will be. This woman has a very well worth reading Weingärtner comment on the article „Sedika Weingartner, manager at Siemens was bullied for 7 years“ behind the current anti-bullying Rundschau. (1)

We always said the "boss" what we have to think!

Michael Gerber now has his job back at Siemens, „Siemens also continued to be concealed from the public,“ which probably put on the crown of the insolence of a company’s crown. (2)

„So Siemens demanded in his settlement proposal a declaration of secrecy, which I forbade me to the topic of a business, Siemens / BenQ and the success of public comments before the Federal Labour Court. The continued employment at Siemens should be concealed from the public. This should obviously be brought an uncomfortable silence critical voices against Siemens. (2)

This form of suppression of freedom of expression was probably something like the uncrowned peak in the case against Michael Gerber Siemens, with the explosive was in the „transition of the employment of Siemens to BenQ. (2) It then went bankrupt BenQ and very strange circumstances. (3)

Outcry in the country of work.

On the blog „NCI News and analysis“ the whole background of the case, Michael Gerber are shown. And Michael Gerber points out to right to a very great success of a little man against a global corporation, who has, however, tasted very much, too much when you consider that we live in a free and democratic constitutional state, as it our politicians are always so like to advertise. Only what actually is law for victims of harassment and termination orgies, if at the end always lose, which must yield to the financial pressure?

‚With the enforcement of the employment claim against the success of Siemens completed before the Federal Labour Court. My goal was to beat in the thicket of labor a path to make way for future commercial disputes in operation transitions favorable initial conditions for employees. „(2)

A success that has been mentioned, unfortunately, in our press and in the rest of the media almost as far as that is already one of the arms of the octopus „destruction of reason“ declaration of secrecy in our country, sad but true. (4) times wonder when the first philosopher or journalist in this country abbekommt its secrecy declaration.

1) https://dieaktuelleantimobbingrundschau.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/sedika-weingartner-managerin-bei-siemens-wurde-7-jahre-lang-gemobbt/

2) http://blog.nci-net.de/2010/04/14/benq-% e2% 80% 9esiemens-need-me-re-occupations-% e2% 80% 9c /

3) http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0, 1518,464759,00. html

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/211/481680/text/

4) http://www.zeit.de/1991/20/Die-andere-Zerstoerung-der-Vernunft?page=1

More Resources:

http://www.nachrichten.de/panorama/Bottrop-Michael-Gerber-Altersteilzeit-BenQ-Pillar-cid_2644814/

http://www.igmetall-bayern.de/Archiv-Ansicht.33+M5785a124a10.0.html

BenQ Mitarbeiter muss von Siemens weiterbeschäftigt werden.

20. April 2010

Die rechtlich sanktionierte Zerstörung der Vernunft?

Mobbing-Opfer mit ihren Arbeitsgerichtserfahrungen wissen was Michael Gerber hinter sich hat. 3 ½ Jahre, in Worten, dreieinhalb Jahre Kampf um seine Würde, seien Arbeitsplatz, Arbeitslosigkeit und das alles unter einem enormen finanzieller Druck, denn ohne Einkommen verliert man sehr schnell der Kampf um seine Würde.

Am Ende hat Michael Gerber sich zum Glück durchgesetzt, obwohl Siemens ihm sogar das Grundrecht auf freie Meinungsäußerung, Artikel 5 des GG nehmen wollte, ein Umstand der zeigt, was auch Sedika Weingärtner  noch bevorstehen dürfte und könnte.

Insbesondere wird die Klage der Ex-Managerin zu einem Musterprozess für alle Mobbing-Opfer in Deutschland werden. Dazu hat Frau Weingärtner auch einen sehr lesenwerten Kommentar auf dem Artikel „Sedika Weingärtner, Managerin bei Siemens wurde 7 Jahre lang gemobbt“ der aktuellen Antimobbingrundschau hinterlassen. (1)

Michael Gerber hat nun seinen Arbeitsplatz bei Siemens wieder, „auch die Weiterbeschäftigung bei Siemens sollte vor der Öffentlichkeit verschwiegen werden“, was wohl der Krone an Unverschämtheit eines Unternehmens die Krone aufsetzt.  (2)

Bei uns sagte immer der "Chef", was wir zu denken haben. 😉

„So verlangte Siemens in seinem Vergleichsvorschlag eine Verschwiegenheitserklärung, die mir untersagte mich zum Thema des Betriebsüberganges Siemens/BenQ und dem Erfolg vor dem Bundesarbeitsgericht öffentlich zu äußern. Auch die Weiterbeschäftigung bei Siemens sollte vor der Öffentlichkeit verschwiegen werden. Damit sollte offensichtlich eine unbequeme kritische Stimme gegen Siemens zum Schweigen gebracht werden“. (2)

Diese Form der Unterdrückung der Meinungsfreiheit war wohl so etwas wie der ungekrönte Höhepunkt im Fall Michael Gerber gegen Siemens, wobei die Brisanz in dem „Übergang des Arbeitsverhältnisses von Siemens auf BenQ“ bestand. (2) Bekanntlich ging dann BenQ und sehr merkwürdigen Umständen Pleite. (3)

Auf dem Blog „NCI News und Analysen“ sind die gesamten Hintergründe des Falls Michael Gerber dargestellt. Und Michael Gerber verweist zu Recht auf einen sehr großen Erfolg eines kleinen Mannes gegen ein Weltkonzern hin, der ihn jedoch sehr viel gekostet hat, zu viel, wenn man überlegt, dass wir in einem freiheitlich und demokratischen Rechtsstaat leben, wie ihn unsere Politiker immer so gerne anpreisen.  Nur was heißt eigentlich Rechtsstaat für Opfer von Kündigungsorgien und Mobbing, wenn am Ende immer der verliert, der dem finanziellen Druck nachgeben muss?

Aufschrei im Land der Arbeit

„Mit der Durchsetzung des Beschäftigungsanspruches gegen Siemens vollendet sich der Erfolg vor dem Bundesarbeitsgericht. Mein Ziel war es in dem Dickicht des Arbeitsrechts einen Pfad zu schlagen, um für künftige betriebliche Auseinandersetzungen bei Betriebsübergängen günstigere Ausgangsbedingungen für Beschäftigte zu schaffen.“(2)

Ein Erfolg, der leider in unserer Presse und in den restlichen Medien kaum erwähnt worden ist, so weit reicht also schon der einer dieser Arme der Krake „Zerstörung der Vernunft*“ der Verschwiegenheitserklärung in unserem Land, traurig aber wahr. (4) Mal gespannt, wann der erste Philosoph oder Journalist in diesem Land seine Verschwiegenheitserklärung abbekommt.

* von Jürgen Habermas

1) https://dieaktuelleantimobbingrundschau.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/sedika-weingartner-managerin-bei-siemens-wurde-7-jahre-lang-gemobbt/

2) http://blog.nci-net.de/2010/04/14/benq-%e2%80%9esiemens-muss-mich-wieder-beschaftigen-%e2%80%9c/

3) http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,464759,00.html

4) http://www.zeit.de/1991/20/Die-andere-Zerstoerung-der-Vernunft?page=1