Postal workers' union wound up

Download article in original language : LU0202103FFR.DOC

In the wake of a scandal over the alleged embezzlement by its president of members' savings, the Trade Union Federation of Luxembourg Postal Delivery Staff (FSFL) was wound up in February 2002. The decision was taken in order to enable members to recover some of the money they have lost.

The Trade Union Federation of Luxembourg Postal Delivery Staff (Fédération syndicaliste des facteurs luxembourgeois, FSFL) was founded in 1909 and had around 1,000 members in early 2002. It once formed part of the General Public Sector Confederation (Confédération Générale de la Fonction Publique, CGFP), but left it in 1985 on the initiative of the FSFL president, Jos Nickts, against a backdrop of controversy and intrigue, on which the courts have not yet been able to make a final ruling.

Financial scandal breaks

Like CGFP, FSFL managed a joint investment savings fund (fonds de placement commun) in which members placed their savings, and were therefore able to obtain a more favourable rate of interest. This money was invested on a month-by-month basis, and the State Bank and Savings Bank (Banque et Caisse d'Epargne de l'Etat, BCEE) traditionally offered the best percentage interest rates. According to the most recently published figures, 560 union members invested a total of about EUR 20 million in the fund.

On 17 January 2002, Jos Nickts, the FSFL president, was placed in preventive detention on suspicion of defrauding the 560 union members of about EUR 5 million, although not all the mechanisms employed in this alleged embezzlement have yet been discovered. At all events, Mr Nickts has been charged with forgery, the use of forgeries, false entry, breach of trust, confidence trickery and common theft, and faces up to 10 years in prison if found guilty. He is also accused of carrying out rash transactions, particularly in Switzerland, and of financial speculation and personal enrichment, exemplified by the alleged purchase of an estate and a yacht in Palma de Mallorca.

Two key questions have been asked since the affair was uncovered: How were senior FSFL officials able to allow their president to manage the joint investment savings fund's assets on his own? And how did the bank concerned allow the problem to develop, without alerting other leading officials in FSFL? When the affair was being investigated, a document dating from 1989 came to light in which all members of the FSFL managing committee specifically authorised Mr Nickts to issue BCEE with instructions, and granted him sole signing rights. Subsequently, after noting significant losses on speculative operations, the bank's management sent senior union officials a 'warning relating to the very speculative nature of some of the operations carried out by Nickts'. However, it is alleged that the letter had little chance of reaching its destination as the president always looked after receiving the mail personally.

Committee decides to dissolve union

On 22 January 2002, members of the FSFL executive committee decided to propose that the union be dissolved, and all its capital and goods be made available, so as to deal with the losses suffered by the 560 members concerned, and thereby minimise the damage as much as possible. An extraordinary congress was announced for 2 February 2002.

No committee members state that they remember granting the president signing rights for the BCEE account, and a complaint of forged handwriting has been placed in the hands of the state prosecutor. The committee has also announced that it had commenced legal proceedings 'in an attempt to establish any BCEE co-responsibility'. It is noteworthy that a subsequent investigation, which exceeded the framework of the initial one, uncovered evidence of actions by one or more alleged co-perpetrators and accomplices within this financial institution.

Position of the union movement

Within the Luxembourg trade union movement, the dire situation of FSFL prompted solidarity. The Luxembourg Association of Banking and Insurance Staff (Association luxembourgeoise des employés de banques et assurances, ALEBA) decided to offer 'unionised postal delivery workers advice and financial support for achieving a new trade union structure worthy of the name'. The Public Sector Federation (Fédération du secteur public) of the Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Lëtzebuerger Chrëschtleche Gewerkschafts-Bond, LCGB) offered members of FSFL, an organisation with a very long trade union tradition, 'solidarity and sympathy', and placed resources at their disposition. CGFP, which argues that the management of its joint investment savings fund would not allow the embezzlement of the type that has allegedly taken place at FSFL, announced that it is prepared to take the postal delivery workers into membership.

The Luxembourg Confederation of Independent Trade Unions (Onofhängege Gewerkschafts-Bond Lëtzebuerg, OGB-L) has stated that it does not have a joint investment savings fund, as it has always believed that such an activity is inappropriate for a trade union.

Extraordinary congress dissolves union

The FSFL extraordinary congress took place on 2 February 2002, and was attended by 736 members with voting rights. They first decided to exclude the president and to accept the resignation of the executive committee. Then, after hearing that FSFL held assets valued at EUR 2.5 million, the meeting decided to wind the union up, by 661 votes to 75.

That does not mean that trade unionism will die out among postal delivery workers, the final gesture of national committee members being to appeal to FSFL members to show joint solidarity in a new organisation. It was agreed that a consultative committee with 11 members, six of them members of the former executive committee, would commence negotiations with the CGFP's Post Office Union (Syndicat des Postes) with a view to forming a new structure called the Postal Delivery Workers' Union (Syndicat des facteurs) within it.

Commentary

The idea of a 1,000-strong trade union federation ceasing to exist after 93 years because of the actions of its leader gives any observer food for thought. It shows how necessary internal control mechanisms are, particularly in trade unions. It might also raise the issue of the boundaries of expansion of union activity at a time when unions are increasingly broadening their services, even offering commercial products such as insurance policies and travel agency services. (Marc Feyereisen)