Racism Report 2003 - Zara

Racism Report 2003 Cases: Work Page 37against Muslims and Arabs extreme. In a ZARA counselling talk Mr. A. kept pointing out that he was a „fellow-citizen“and Austria was his country. The ZARA counsellor explained his options to him but Mr. A. only wanted to have hisexperiences documented and said that he was „happy that ZARA exists“.Ö. works as a cleaner for the company ISS-Systems. Her sister-in-law was looking for work and soMs.Zivilcourage und Anti-Rassismus-Arbeitshe asked her employer if there was a job for her sister-in-law. The answer was positive, she should come by for aninterview. When the employer was surprised to find that the sister-in-law wore a headscarf for religious reasons, thepromise of a job was no longer valid. The sister-in-law‘s husband, Mr. O., contacted ZARA to ask what ZARA could do.He found out from WIF that there would soon be an anti-discrimination law which would enable legal proceedingsin such cases. The ZARA counsellor informed him of the current legal status. At that time the so-called EU guidelineframework on equal opportunities at work (see the relevant section in the Racism Report) had not yet come intoforce and the equal opportunities regulations planned for implementation in Austria were only at draft stage. TheZARA counsellor offered to write a letter to the manager of the company. However, Ms. Ö. was afraid of losing herjob. Also when the ZARA counsellor offered to write a generally formulated letter of complaint without mentioningnames, Ms. Ö. felt that this was too risky.164O. reported another case a few weeks later. His wife applied for a job as an office cleaner at theMr.Zivilcourage und Anti-Rassismus-Arbeitcleaning company P. Dussmann, 1030 Vienna. However, her application was rejected and in the certificate for theEmployment Office the company representative, Ms. Link, wrote that the applicant could firstly not start work at 6a.m. and secondly under „other reasons“: „Headscarf not taken off during work.“ ZARA wrote a letter of complaintto the company and received a reply:„Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, We refer to your letter of 8.7. and would like to inform you that as an internationalcompany we employ more that 50,000 staff worldwide. In Vienna we have about 800 employees, whereby we wouldclearly like to state that our company makes no kinds of racist comments. Our employees come from all neighbouringcountries and we naturally respect their religious beliefs. However, it is unfortunately the case that we must alsointroduce our employees to our customers and they have the right to reject employees without giving reasons. Ifour company does not respond, the customer also has the right to terminate the existing contract with us. You willtherefore certainly understand that we must respect customer wishes. Ms. Link, who has been with our company formany years and knows her customers very well therefore also knows which staff she can use. We therefore ask youto understand the situation. If you have any questions please contact our Mr. Koukol on 01/332 94 20. Best regards,P. Dussmann GesmbH ppa. Harald Koukol, Branch Manager.“The ZARA counsellor wrote another letter of complaint and argued that the applicant was not rejectedwithout reason but clear reference was made to her headscarf and explained that this contradictedEU Guideline 2000/78 - discrimination on the basis of religion. There was no reaction from the company.165E. is an Austrian of Nigerian origin and has lived in Austria for 20 years. He had been registered as 166Mr.Zivilcourage und Anti-Rassismus-Arbeitunemployed with the Employment Service since 3 March 2003. During telephone calls and interviews he was alwaysconfronted with taciturn rejection. Mr. E. finally received notice from the Employment Service that his unemploymentbenefit was cancelled for the period from 30 April to 10 June because his behaviour had prevented him fromtaking up a job allocated to him by the Employment Office.Mr. E. could not explain this because he was urgently and seriously looking for work (father of three with his wifeon maternity leave) and he appealed in writing with the due period and also contacted the Chamber of Labour. Atthe ZARA counselling talk Mr. E. was very annoyed about his Employment Service counsellor and showed his appointmentscard, which confirmed that he had kept all appointments. He asserted that he wanted to work and was worriedhow he should pay the rent. Mr. E. said that such things do not happen so often in England or the USA or they areforbidden. Mr. E. said that many of his friends had finally left Austria because of similar difficulties while lookingfor work. ZARA suggested writing various letters but Mr. E. only thought a letter to the Employment Service wouldbe useful. Firstly ZARA received an answer from the manager to the Employment Service office: „(...) I would like topoint out that the execution of the Unemployment Insurance Act is regulated by precise guidelines. A stoppage inaccordance with §10 of that act can only take place after an investigation procedure, a record of the details and aftera meeting and recommendation of the even-parity regional advisory board. (...)“Many weeks later ZARA received the news from an Employment Service employee that the unemployment benefitwould be paid back to Mr. E. In the concluding talk Mr. E. described his frustration to the ZARA counsellor. He saw nofuture for himself and his family in Austria because he did not only want simple jobs, he had previously worked in thefield of marketing and wanted appropriate work in future. He wanted to be able to offer his family a different lifebut in Austria he had no chance of finding a better job. Since he knows many people in England he wanted to movethere with his family and hoped to find a better life with more opportunities. He thanked ZARA and the Chamber ofLabour for their support.