Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

Deceived Workers Demand Justice (part II)

March 13, 2007

gza2b.gif

Workers say that the company offered them to pay half of their one-year-wages. The victims did not accept the offer.

The same thing is written in the letter that was sent to the Georgian Financial Police Department in 2005. “We were told that they would pay us half of our wages for one year, if we had singed the blank, stating we received the wages for the whole year. We did not accept their illegal offer… We urge you to discuss our joint appeal and launch criminal case against the Georgian Road Construction Company.”

If they do not admit that they have debt to us, why they have offered us 100 000 GEL?” asked the lawyer for workers.

As for the current legislation, the Tax Code, Article 61 states that “the responsibilities of the reorganized enterprise or organization must be followed by its legal heir according to the regulations envisaged by this article. If several enterprises are joined, the new enterprise will be put in charge to follow old responsibilities.”

According to the Law on Entrepreneurs, Article 14, “the society who adjoined old society, is either newly established society or is a legal heir of the old society.”

Despite all abovementioned difficulties, the workers went on working for the company. Former director and workers have one answer to the question-why they continued working for the company if they were not paid wages.   “The people went on working because they hoped the situation would change for better. They knew their bosses well and had good relationships with them. They had known each other before starting this company. They had never lost anything during working for those people and hoped the same would happen with this new company. The chiefs of the company promised the workers to pay them old and new wages together. Everybody worked with that hope,” said Doghonadze, former director of the company.

The workers said that “We had no more income and we continued working with the hope that one day they would pay us the money. 100 lari meant much for us. In 2002 we lived much harder life than we live now. It was too difficult to earn money.”

 On October 10 2005, having reached no justice, the victims appealed to the Tbilisi City Court. The appeal described details what the victims speak about in their conversation to the journalist for Human Rights Center. They demanded to return their debts. The City Court discussed the question and made a decision. The appeal was not satisfied because of lack of evidences.

The verdict stated that the defendant did not accept the appeal and said that although the Georgian Roads Construction Company Ltd is a legal heir of the Viraji, it is not enough to take responsibility of paying salaries. Consequently, the verdict dated by February 9 2006 stated that “the court concluded that the accusers were cooperating with the defendant organization; however the case materials are invalid to prove the legality of accusers’ demands on paying that amount of money.” 

The workers appealed against that verdict on March 17 2006 at the Appeal Court. The accuser side demanded from the defendant, Georgian Roads Construction Company Ltd, to produce the blanks of the wages. The court demanded the defendant to produce those documents.  However, the demand was not followed. According to the court’s final decision, the verdict passed by the City Court was not altered and the accusers’ appeal was not satisfied.

In order to find out situation, the journalist for the Human Rights Center got in touch with the Appeal Court. Speaker Judge for the Appeal Court, Tamar Zambakhidze, commented on the situation.  “Under the Georgian Civil Procedural Code, Article 4, the investigation is being carried out according to the competitiveness. The parties have equal rights and possibilities to prove their demands, deny and annihilate the statements, ideas or proofs made by opposite side. The Article 102, section I states that each party should prove the circumstances under which their demands and arguments on compensation are prepared. The Appeal Court concluded that the applicants failed to prove the fact of having worked for the Viraji Ltd in 2002-2003 and the fact that the state owed that money to them.”

(part III)  http://www.humanrights.ge/eng_/articles.php?id=649

Eka Gulua 

News