Alleged discriminatory clauses, a second appeal was presented to the TAR against Sacal GH
The controversy over the call for seasonal workers and the ranking that resulted from it does not end
In an already very tense climate, within which a first appeal had already been presented to the TAR, an appeal which had already resulted in a first ruling by the second section of the TAR itself through the suspension of some of the criteria deemed discriminatory against of Sacal GH workers, Now comes a second appeal. Therefore, the controversy that arose around the 2024 call for Sacal GH seasonal workers continues and with increased intensity, a call considered controversial by some airport seasonal workers, indeed even discriminatory, which effectively cuts out qualified workers with ten-year service and, with criteria of attribution of scores already widely contested in several places, has effectively reset previous lengths of service.
In detail, after the first appeal to the Calabria TAR, a new appeal – this time presented by the lawyer. Simona Grillo of the Court of Lamezia Terme – once again focuses the attention of public opinion on the presence of defects in legitimacy that affect the validity of the selection procedure. In particular, these are profiles of objectionability of the clauses included in the notice such as to cause prejudice to the sphere of the aspirants both in terms of participation in the selection and in terms of the position in the ranking.
The scenario is now made more controversial by the fact that the ranking resulting from the tender has been released, it is publicly accessible, and from it the seasonal calls will arise starting from May 1st, but the calculations do not add up in any case: in light of the “filters” applied upstream, it appears that the requirement for ramp agents, initially quantified as five units, sees only three names registered in the specific section of the ranking; similarly, the need for agents al check in and boarding, quantified in eighteen units, is slightly lower than the list of names included in the ranking net of the various clauses, with the risk that some of them will not serve.
This is because, as highlighted among the requirements of the notice, to be able to work in Sacal GH as seasonal workers there must be no ongoing disputes with the company (Art. 2, point f). Workers who find themselves with a score that is not adequate in relation to their qualifications and length of service must, essentially, choose between working in Sacal GH (provided they have not been eliminated a priori with one of the restrictive clauses) and a second option, that is, asserting one’s rights in the appropriate forums, a courageous choice which however – immediately – involves renouncing the service. A modus operandi which risks also having repercussions on the management of flights in view of the summer traffic peak, given that it will see the Lamezzo airport entering the new 2024 summer season with a reduced pool of seasonal workers.
Other peculiarities emerge from the new ranking: names appear “admitted with reservation”a novel factor compared to the other announcements of the last thirteen years, and notable fluctuations in the positions of some workers between the 2023 ranking (also accessible) and that of 2024. We are talking about potentially discriminatory clauses and criteria for assigning scores, and we can easily notice – for example – that position no. 1 in the 2023 ranking has magically become position no. 15 of that 2024, all in the space of just a year. If it is true that on the one hand the Law has its course and will express its opinion on any responsibilities, on the other hand Mathematics can also be useful to understand that, perhaps, there is something wrong.
