Dear Member,
In order to follow the situation, it is important to recap the latest developments
Following our Newsletter announcing our intention regarding the Intern Compensatie Fonds, a meeting was called by the AWDC with BVGD on November 13th. During the meeting, the BVGD pointed out that the “Protocol” which was signed in good faith by MM Kaushik Mehta and Jacky Bronner on May 31st 2006, “on behalf” of the Trade, has not been faithfully translated into law.
Indeed the Royal Decree (KB) differs on many crucial point with was then “agreed” by the Trade. Principally the fact that both schemes (1/3% tax on imports of rough and the new ‘social plan’) would stop if employment of diamond workers reduces further by 50% was not written in the KB.
Then, a meeting was called on November 28th with the government representative and the president of the Paritair Committee for diamond to “clarify” the situation. During the meeting, both representatives reluctantly agreed with us when asked about the discrepancies between the KB and the protocol. It was further revealed that – nine months after the Royal Decree was published – the “special committee 2” in charge of controlling the scheme, in which MM Mehta and Bronner were to be a part, was still not nominated. As one participant observed to the government representative: “in other words, you created the Fund, collect the money but the body that is to supervise it is not nominated yet?” The expected answer was: “The old committee (with no Trade representative of course) was allegedly “temporarily” competent to overview the matter.
At that meeting it surfaced that the percentage for next year was soon to be decided.
So a meeting for Monday December 3rd was called with the representatives for the Industry (SBD), the president of the Paritair Committee, both Trade Unions, Mr. Jacky Bronner, the government representative and the BVGD represented by Mr. Andre Gumuchdjian.
Mr. Bronner had made the following calculation based on the latest figures:
€ 2.727.000 was collected for the 2nd and 3rd quarters. In the same period €1.026.000 was distributed. On an annual basis, this represents an intake of €4.091.000 (3/2 of total) and an outlay of € 2.052.000. As the Protocol provided for a maximum buffer of € 800.000 (also “omitted” in the Royal Decree) and considering that the Fund already collected an excess of €1.701.000 so far, the real need of the industry for 2008, based on the numbers above, is to collect € 1.152.000 or 0.05 per thousand.
It was doubtful that the SBD would accept these numbers; I suggested that if the trade unions use the argument that the final figures for 2007 are not known, that one simply approves a percentage for the 1st quarter of 2008 until final figures are known.
At the meeting, a representative of SBD aggressively objected to the presence of BVGD. As they threatened (their preferred tactic) to cancel the meeting (and set the percentage on their own), I decided to leave and allow Mr. Bronner to negotiate, albeit alone, the percentage for 2008. The result has been that the percentage for the first 6 months for 2008 will be 0.15 per thousand. Still too much, but a substantial saving over this year.
We believe it is very much thanks to BVGD’s action (and restraint at the meeting) that allowed Mr Bronner to obtain this first result.
Then on Wednesday December 5th, a meeting was held to decide who would represent the Trade in the ‘Special committee 2’. Many members of AWDC were quite pleased with BVGD’s actions but asked that it should stop the pending Court case. If not they were not willing to nominate Board members of BVGD to the committee, arguing it was not right to sit in one committee and fight other committee members in Court. I observed that this is not a problem. The point is to nominate the most competent persons, so far we were only informed on the numbers but no check has been done yet of how and to whom the payouts are being done and if they conform to the rules. Further, I remarked that while some AWDC Board members have strong ethical reservations, the other side obviously less so, as they did not respect the “Mazal” they had given (the Protocol) and passed a Royal Decree (KB) that turned out to be markedly different on crucial points.
It is important to note that while the BVGD pointed out the discrepancies between the Protocol and the KB, it does not accept the Protocol as such, as it was signed secretly and without a mandate from us.
As events turned out, the BVGD preserved its freedom of action.
On December 13th the BVGD held a meeting for our members, with our lawyer Mr. David D’Hooghe. He made a presentation on why he feels that the “social plan” can be successfully challenged in Court. Basically the Constitution holds that a tax and its percentage can only be passed by an elected body such as a Parliament, thus not by a Minister acting on behalf of the King. The argument in Court will thus hinge on the interpretation of the levy we are asked to pay. The law defines very precisely what a tax is. If the Constitutional Court agrees with our reasoning, the Royal Decree will be declared invalid and the sums paid will be reimbursed.
It is important to note that reimbursements will only be done to those who filed for reimbursements. After the judgment the only option for those wishing to recuperate their money will be to file separate Court cases.
The BVGD believes that this tax is a useless measure. It will not prevent market and economic forces to play out in this globalized economy. Further we believe that, as this tax affects strongly the very large movements of goods in Antwerp, there is a risk that big players may avoid Antwerp to avoid paying the tax. The promoters of this tax are taking very big risks with the future of Antwerp as a world diamond trading centre. Risks that the BVGD deems reckless to take in today’s situation.
Further, we have brought to the surface that the Intern Compensatie Fonds holds more than € 64 million in reserve. Money that was taken from the Trade and that sits in bank accounts bearing interests. Money that has not even gone to help the workers.
We believe that this “social plan” has to stop and the money accumulated in the Fund should be returned to the rightful owners.
Already we have shown that we can obtain results by being firm. It is important to act in Court in order to obtain results and correct the abuses. By participating in this action, you will save Antwerp from further losing importance.
Best regards,
Andre Gumuchdjian
On behalf of the BVGD
|
