To the INFN Council of Directors:

We are forwarding the following letter, signed by permanent staff members and associates today, 27 November, in the span of a few hours. Please read it with attention.

Best regards.

To the INFN Council of Directors:

Subject: Extension of contracts for stabilization-eligible employees

Over the course of the last few days, we have come to understand that the INFN is sending letters to stabilization-eligible employees notifying them that their fixed-term contracts will be concluded at the end of 2009. We believe this to be a serious mistake that is the result of an ultra-restrictive interpretation of the relevant regulations, and which above all damages the INFN, as we attempt to explain in this letter. We are appealing to each member of the Council of Directors to carefully consider our arguments, and to work towards the revocation by the INFN of the termination letters already delivered and for the extension of the fixed-term contracts of the stabilization-eligible employees under the terms of the stabilization procedure.

1. Because it will be damaging to the interests of the INFN.

The stabilization-eligible employees have term contracts without end dates—the contracts are valid for the duration of the stabilization procedure. The costs of these contracts does not count against the allocation of the INFN’s operating budget for normal fixed-term contracts, which by law cannot exceed 35% of the 2004 expenditure, or about 2.5 million euros. On the other hand, if the stabilization contracts are terminated, the INFN finds itself having to decide between two bad alternatives: definitively let go of the stabilization-eligible employees, or offer them new fixed-term contracts. In the former case, there would be obvious consequences on the INFN research program, given the level of experience of these employees and their responsibilities within their experiments. In the latter case, the new contracts would count against the spending limits for INFN-funded contracts or soak up the remaining external funding; in any case, they would use up the scarce resources which would otherwise be available for the retention or recruitment of younger employees. From the standpoint of opportunity alone, therefore, it is important to extend the contracts of the eligible employees under the premises of the stabilization procedure.

2. Because it is based on an incorrect understanding of the relevant regulations.

The status of a stabilization-eligible employee is determined by law in accordance with the 2007 budget act, which established well-known criteria for giving permanent contracts to many types of workers, and which also provided for the retention in service of eligible employees up until the end of the stabilization procedure. A March 2008 circular from the Ministry of Public Administration (which by its nature does not have the same force as the law) declared that the stabilization process be considered to end on 31 December 2009. However, the economic emergency measures of this June (a public law in every sense of the word) essentially disregarded the December 2009 date, and recognized the rights of stabilization-eligible employees to up to 40% of new positions opened to public competition during the three-year period 2010-2012. In practice, the stabilization process cannot be considered to have ended, because eligible employees have a collective right to these new positions until the end of 2012. Given this situation, the position of the INFN management—based on the interpretation of a ministerial circular emanated from a lame-duck government and already superseded by law recognizing the status of the stabilization-eligible until end-2012—seems not only incomprehensible, but down right self-injurious. The point is not create new interpretations of the regulations: it is to see them as they are.

3. Because the Council of Directors should take responsibility for extending the contracts of the stabilization-eligible..

We are writing to you because we believe the Council of Directors to be the highest authority of the INFN, since it is the only governing body that can approve official acts. And we believe that, sometimes, the right course is not to adhere blindly to the legal interpretations suggested by bureaucrats, but to try to come to a full understanding of the situation. In the current circumstances, there are institiutes, such as the National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology (INGV), that have tried to arrive at this fuller understanding. There are others, such as the Superior Institute of Health (ISS), where such discussion is ongoing. As if that were not enough, permit us to suggest that when the regulations present ambiguities of interpretation, a management structure that has the best interests of the Institute at heart must opt for the most advantageous interpretation possible, even at the cost of assuming the responsibility for that choice, especially in an emergency situation like that at hand.

Finally, we note that an approach of this sort would not solve the problem of temporary labor, but it would have the merit of allowing a larger number of fixed-term workers to continue to work at the INFN, and would give the management the time needed to define an exit strategy and discuss it with the personnel.

Signed:

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italiano.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italiano.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italiano.