The decision to the above mentioned changes was forwarded to Dr. Dežman by Nataša Robežnik, director of the public institution Museum of new and contemporary history of Slovenia; minister Vrečko appointed Nataša Robežnik to her new position in order to eliminate two, allegedly not loyal but exceptionally qualified professionals. However, the issue itself, becomes more complicated. In February, Dežman submitted a protest to the Regional Court in Ljubljana requesting a nullification of the entry of new museum into the judicial register, and furthemore a nulification of deletion of the two previously registered museum institutions. Due to this formal complaint, the establishment of the new museum

institution is not legally acceptable. Even when the court makes its decision,

complaints will be seen as legal unrestricted process viability.. 

Since the establishment of the new institution is not yet legal, it is not yet understood how the newly intended vd can at all conduct the business. The situation is becoming complicated even further. Since the manner in which the vd director has already conducted the business clearly conflicts with the statutes pertaining to rights of employer, as well as the pertinent obligations vis a vis established union rights, Dežman requested an urgent oversight into issues of inspection of employment due to specific conflicts with existing laws.

There is a strong possibility of oversight involvement as well, because pertinent inspection is subject to authority of employment minister Luka Mesec who is a declared president of Ljevica ( a left political party), a party which is initiating and executing a closure of two museums led by minister of Culture Asta Vrečko.

The entire text regarding the inspection oversight due to reduction of employee’s right to work is as follows:

Department of employment inspection

Gp.irsd@gov.si

Štukljeva cesta 441000 Ljubljana

Ljubljana, 12 March, 2023

Subject: Urgent request for inspection oversight at the Museum of new and contemporary history, Celovška 23, Ljubljana and alleged violations of the rights of employees

Dear,

By this notification, I am submitting a formal request to remove the inflicted violations of the rights of employees.. Follows a detailed clarification on the matter:

The Government of the Republic of Slovenia reached on 19 January a Resolution to establish a new institution, a Museum of newer and contemporary history of Slovenia ( referred to in this text as MuZXXI). This act, therefore, establishes that a formal entry about the new institution be entered into the register, consequently deleting from the register the existing Museum of newer history (referred to as MNZS), and a Museum of Slovenian Independence (further in text referred to as MSO). The employees of the MNZS, The Council of the MNZS, the experts (the deposition of dr. Verena Vidrih Perko and dr. Marko Štepac signed by 176 individuals), The Association for values of Slovenian independence and other public individuals submitted their depositions. Since the political leaders and parties warned about absence of expert debate and pointed out the unclear approach to the entire process, unacceptable labeling and other dilemmas, the MK initiated the necessary procedures. On February 13, 2023, by a court decision, the MuZXXI was formally entered into the register while the MNS and MSO were deleted from the register.

Neither Dr. Nataša Robežnik nor the MK prepared the necessary proscribed procedures essential to the protection of rights and legal status of the employees and other pertinent rights in the area of labor relations. From this stems that Ms. Robežnik acting impromptu on the morning of 14 February, requested depositions from the employees on the same day. Following the warning by two unions of MNYD, Glose and Sviya, which protested the unlawful submission of the deadline for comments and suggestions, the due date for this activity was extended to 21 February. On February 15, I sent to Robežnik and all employees the protocols which Glosa insisted should have been adopted in the overall process of systematization.

“The union must always be informed about the contents of systematization before any acceptance of changes. Article 10 pertaining to employment relations imposes significant monetary penalties for lack of observance of this regulation (for example, item 1 of the first paragraph of section 217.a Zdr.-1) which also addresses other general actions undertaken by the employer.

I particularly emphasize that public institutions in the Culture department must observe not only the regulations listed under Article 10 Zdr-1 but the proposition regarding systematization must be forwarded to the union before any acceptance. If the union reaches a decision within a period of eight days, it must fully analyze it and reach a decision before submission of general documents; it furthermore, must respect/observe the rules of the Collective agreement pertaining to cultural activities in the Republic of Slovenia, and particularly so according to Article 45, section Law regarding public interest “in culture”, that is, subsequently, Article 26 of the Law regarding public sector employees. 

This not only stipulates that before reaching any general decision which affects the rights and obligations of public employees, the overseer must make available to the pertinent union the opportunity to present its argumentation, but in addition, it dictates that the documents of proposals must be (also) forwarded to the union and allow a reasonable time (not only eight days) to formulate an opinion.

Furthermore, the union must take the official opinion into account, or call for a meeting to debate the issues. If the (employer) agreement of the proposal is not accepted by the union, the employer can still make a not-agreed-upon decision, but such case requires in writing argumentation. Given the importance of such issues, a positive decision, an agreement, should never be reached without previous documentation and analysis of all parties.

 

The employers should present their comments, opinions and positions because that approach might benefit all involved. If the employer , thereafter, rejects reasonable counter initiatives and proposals of the employees, or the unions, they later will be left without recourse other than collective judicial approach, complaint to inspection departments and alike. However, do note that in this case, as in all cases, our legal services will assist you.”

The employees have presented their case, but received no answer. They, among other data, did not receive a text of systematization within which the positions of the employers would be agreed upon or, with proper argumentation, rejected. On 23 February, a meeting of the executive board of MuZXXI was held; the minutes of this meeting have not yet been published or provided. In addition, the employees have not yet, to this date, received a note regarding apparently already voted for systematization. Therefore, on 1 March I wrote to N. Robežnikova:

„Dear Nataša, I fear that the zest with which you are implementing the MuYXXI project will not lead to a good outcome. Once again, I am enclosing the standards according to which the entire process of systematizations should evolve in the public culture institutions. The employees have submitted their positions, and arguments regarding shortcomings within the stipulated period of eight days. We would appreciate receiving an answer in that respect as well as to our comments regarding the systematization. Neither of these issues have materialized.

However, systematization was placed on the daily calendar of the executive board meeting while the representative of the employees and the union expressed their apprehension about such act. If I understood correctly, the proposal was accepted conditionally,with a clarification that any disagreements would subsequently be corrected in the future. In order to avoid more serious complications, we will appreciate your clarification as to how-despite clearly proscribed conditions of systematization- we had to face so many conflicting transgressions of the existing rules. I think that the unions, which always identify unlawful pressures on the employees, and the employees themselves,and particularly the wider public, must recieve answers to these questions.“

The same day, N. Robežnikov answered:

“Dear dr. Jože Dežman, The regulations regarding the implementation of systematization of employee positions in the Museaum of recent and contemporary History of Slovenia, was debated during the 2. meeting of the executive board in presence of all members of the board, representatives of the employees and representatives of the two unions- Glose and Sviza. The meeting was held on 22 February 2023. Both unions submitted positives opinions. Union Glosa proposed to introduce (into the process of systematization) pertinent salary changes which were affirmed by the Aneks( attachment) of the collective agreement for cultural activities of the Republic of Slovenia (Urani list, number 136/22). 

This was affirmed by the members of the executive board and the information was entered into the (business) Rules. The members of the board also agreed with the Glose union proposal that individual proposals be regulated by a special employer act, and we will address this. The Board also decided that the (business) Rules will be examined again considering the proposals of the employees. Other specific proposals are already included in the Rules. As I have already emphasized, there is no desire the exclude employees ; on the contrary, we are proceeding collaborating with the employees in an attempt to create a better work environment“.

Followed my reply the same day:

„Dear Nataša, I fear that your unclear responses will not lead far. The posed questions are important procedural questions which require a more robust clarification than the one you submitted. The essential fact is that all time protocols, necessary for correct implementation of systematization, were not observed. You received the opinions and comments. When did the employees receive the response to open issues? What was accepted under the rubric of “accepted systematization”, what was rejected and why? When did the employees receive the systematization data for examination? When was the formal systematization debate held? Where are the documents, minutes, materials…? I expect they will be available for detailed examination on the web page of MuZXXI promptly. However, there are many substantive questions. One of the basic questions is will the systematization documents specifically list a location on Poljanska 40 which is also listed in the original decisions. If we list Cekin Castle and Deposit of State Archives in Pivka, why not list the location at Poljanska 40?

If Poljanska 40 is (by decision) no longer in MuZXXI, I must conclude that someone, somehow has changed the decision on establishing the MuZXXI?

Which extraordinary source did you find indicating that MuZXXI lacks specific programs? Considering that it was promised that the new institution will offer exceptional opportunities for collections, studies, and exhibits on democratization, process of attaining independence, defense and development of the Republic of Slovenia, the public is, obviously, interested in what is planned for the future. Thus, what is the program for MuZXX for 2023?”

There were no answers for any of my questions. In any case, the answers could not possibly justify the unlawful procedures set in motion and implementation by N. Robežnik in the process of systematization. Since it is evident that the intent of such administraive approach is to force decisions on employee excluded from the process, a process which will significantly affect the quality of performance of MuYXXI, I am hereby requesting the work inspection department to intervene.

The unjust and bad situation created by the employer for MuYXXI and its employees will only continue to deteriorate by the action of this entire process. Due to a rapid registration of the MuYXXI there is no consideration offered for a work plan for 2023. In addition, it is not clear where will the MSO personnel be accommodated in the MuYxxI building. No provisions have been made for specific work rooms and it is not clear how the respective funds will be assured for that purpose.

In addition, I have recieved no formal notification of any kind regarding my function after removal from a position of director. Although I am still recieving a full salary in the new institution, I recieve no notification, internal memoes of any kind; I am not included in any discussion on any matter. On the bases of Law regarding access to public information , I am requesting that you inform me on the subject regarding its jurisdiction, specific identification number and expected date of conclusion of the project, and a request that you notify me personally on the matter.

On the base of the above arguments, I propose to the pertinent administrative body to perform the inspection oversight of the Museum of newer and contemporary history located at Celovska 23, Ljubljana, and to publish the decision that the employer remove all committed transgressions, and that the Department of Employment of the Republic of Slovenia-on the bases of listed transgressions-insures that the Museum of recent and modern history is properly sanctioned according to article1.

We will appreciate a notification regarding the removal of the above listed transgressions and violations at the shortest possible date to the above listed address or to the following e-mail address: jdmemores@gmail.com.

Dr. Jože Dežman