We have requested an urgent meeting with the regional management of Emilia-Romagna on some important issues.
This is the text of the request:
The undersigned trade union organisation, as agreed at the last meeting on 17 April, requests an urgent meeting to understand why thirteen mobility applications made under the regional mobility agreement were rejected for particular reasons.
During the meeting we would also like to understand why the promise to transfer the internal regional winners of the competition before the conclusion of the procedure, in order to free up seven places in the ranking, useful for eligible non-winners, was not then realised.
With regard to the criteria for assigning offices for new hires, we want to express all our opposition both to the choice of some criteria and to the transparency of communication sent to new hires.
We do not agree with the choice to use the criterion of residence in Emilia-Romagna, first of all because contrary to current legislation which obliges the administration to use the criterion of positioning in the ranking and also because the union information does not indicate the date from which the residence was recognized as valid, because it is one thing to have it from birth and another thing to have acquired it recently time. It is also not clear why, with a view to minimizing commuting, the residences of the regions neighboring those of Emilia-Romagna were not also considered, because as has already happened in the past a worker resident in Veneto but only 8 km away from the headquarters of Ferrara was hired in Modena. This criterion easily lends itself to the creation of fictitious residences and therefore for all this we ask that it not be used.
Then there is the incompatibility criterion which did not allow 20 candidates to obtain the chosen location even if they had been among the first in the ranking and had resided in the region. The incompatibility is detected in those who have worked as a lawyer or accountant up until the moment of hiring, also in other professional firms with a VAT number, while if they had been an employee, the incompatibility would not exist (provided we have understood the union information). But it often happens that in the world of private work, if you want to work in a professional studio as an employee you have to register for VAT. A way to cancel the acquired rights of workers and make them bear the costs of illness, holidays, maternity leave and so on. Unfortunately, in Italy this phenomenon is very frequent and well known to the Revenue Agency. We are the European country with the highest number of VAT numbers.
Apart from this, we do not understand which law is being referred to in order to use incompatibility as an exclusion of the province in which the work was carried out; in fact, neither law 165/2001 nor the internal code of conduct provide for this type of determination, but clearly indicate how to behave in the event that an assigned practice could create a conflict of interest.
We therefore ask that you respect the order of placement in the ranking and eliminate incompatibility exceptions.
On the communication sent to the winners of the competition, “strangely” there is no trace of having given priority to the residents of the region, nor of the reasons for exclusion due to the alleged incompatibility. In fact, if we read the letter of invitation sent to a worker among the first in the ranking, residing in the province requested as first choice and rejected by the Administration, we only read: “… after evaluating the preferences expressed by you regarding the place of assignment, the position in the ranking and the functional and operational needs of the Revenue Agency structures, I inform you that it has been assigned to the Provincial Directorate of …”
We are waiting to know the date of the requested meeting.
USB PI Tax Agencies Emilia-Romagna
