Medvuz against the trade union: the conflict brings to the police department

Julia Chebakova and Alexey Parshukov. YouTube collage

This story began at the end of 2013, when the primary trade union organization “University Solidarity” was created in RNMU. (In total, this trade union has a dozen primary organizations in different universities.) As Yulia Chebakova told the OVD-Info, they notified the union to create colleagues at the academic council of the Psychological and Social Faculty of Social Faculty, they announced that they would fight for raising labor wages, and 11 people were present at the constituent meeting. Before the new city, the newly -made trade union gave the rector a standard notification of the creation of the organization, with references to the laws and a request to submit a number of documents that are an application to the collective agreement, but absent on the university’s website, in particular, the provisions on the salary and the provision on bonus. (According to the Law on Education, all additions to the collective agreement and the collective agreement itself should be open on the official website of the organization.)

According to Chebakova, immediately after the New Year holidays, the dean of the faculty informed them that RNEMU REMORA Andrei Kamkin demanded that everyone involved in the creation of a new trade union. After that, Alexei Parshukov, elected by the chairman of the trade union, went to the rector for reception, and he said to him: they say that one trade union at the university is already there, no longer needed. Everyone who was present at the Constituent Assembly was forced to write applications for withdrawal from the trade union under the threat of dismissal. “Right with us, the head of the departments said: collect explanatory from your employees,” said Chebakova. Soon, some members of the new trade union left it, others left the university of their own free will, and only three people remained in the trade union, who, according to Chebakova, were the most active members - Alexei Parshukov, his deputy Rufin Kharisov and Chebakova herself.

“They tried to put pressure on us through the establishment of a special mode of operation,” says Chebakova. - We were told that we should be all due to 36 hours a week on the territory of the department - in a small room where there are cabinets and there are a couple of computers so that laboratory assistants can prepare the statements. Naturally, this is not a place where you can do the work every day for eight hours. Actually, this was never required. Moreover, our own internal documents of the university did not set a schedule and did not record jobs, a flexible mode of operation for the teacher is assumed. The main thing is that the work is carried out 36 hours a week and certain duties under the employment contract are fulfilled. ” For two months, university solidarity activists were forced to work in such conditions. They attracted the attention of journalists in the problem. In response, the rector published an open letter to opponents called “dirty foam, or a story about how to abuse the laws of the Russian Federation” (on the university’s website this document was currently not possible to find it possible). It followed from this letter that the active members of the new trade union “decided that they could receive a salary, but neither labor legislation nor local acts of the university relate to them. They can afford to come to work anyway and leave when they want. At work, spend some groups of students and immediately go about their business. That is, lead the life of "free artists." The final of the letter said that "with repeated violations, these persons will simply be dismissed at 24 hours."

In early March, Chebakova was dismissed for absenteeism. “Since I work at the Department of Clinical Psychology, at the time of my absenteeism I was on the clinical base, I worked under the labor contract, and I was charged that I was supposed to read classes, although, in fact, I should not,” she explains. The trial in two instances did not end in her favor. Chebakova claims that the university in court use "a lot of false documents." In connection with the letter of the rector, members of the trade union filed a lawsuit to protect honor and dignity, but also lost in two instances: the court considered that there were no facts in the letter, but there were only subjective assessment judgments that could not be the subject of protection.

On September 1, Alexei Parshukov was fired from the post of senior teacher of general psychology and pedagogy on the basis that he was not a competitive selection. According to Chebakova, for the first time in ten years, the competition was not a formal procedure, but a competition with the involvement of a candidate from the outside. Members of the trade union claim that, according to their information, they pressed greatly so that she would not recommend Parshukov. At the same time, the candidate who went through the competitive selection and actually took the place of Parshukov, did not get this work. At that time, Parshukov still worked in the university laboratory part -time as a researcher, but at the end of September he stopped working, as a result of which he could not get into the university, and five days later he received a telegram that he would terminate the employment contract. “They didn’t even call him, they didn’t invite him to get acquainted with this order,” Chebakova is indignant. In court, Parshukov pointed out a violation of the Labor Code - the competition was held two years after the previous one, and not five years later, as it was supposed to be an unlimited employment contract, which the university concluded with Parshukov. However, the court decided to refuse him to satisfy the claim.

Acts were drawn up on Rufin Kharisov, as if she were not at work, after which for three months they did not pay her most of the salary, which had been supposed to her for scientific work, paid only for the training load. On December 11, she was also fired for absenteeism.

Such an acute reaction to the creation of the Chebakov trade union with different reasons. According to her, the rector of RNEMU, in principle, “does not tolerate the initiative from below” and was outraged that “unexpectedly, without asking him, without agreeing with him, a trade union appeared, which also wants to receive some documents.” In addition, the rector had previously had a conflict with the chairman of another trade union, which has been in force at the university for many years, with which the rector has concluded a collective agreement. This trade union disputed the rector’s elections, they also have permanent, incessant courts, the chairman was already fired three or four times, each time they restored. Moreover, formally, the chairman was shot by the meeting of the trade union committee, although only the trade union conference can be removed by law. At the same time, the old trade union Chebakov calls pocket - according to her, appointed acting The chairman expresses full consent with the leadership of the university, and the rector, according to some reports, gave an order so that he would know about everyone who enters this trade union, although he does not have the right to demand this. “Only he somehow tried to make one trade union manually, when suddenly some new, independent, appears, and at once 11 people,” Commentes Chebakova.

It also assumes that in the history of the conflict between the university and the University Solidarity there was a financial component. In court, representatives of the university for some reason stated that in the documents of the new trade union it is allegedly written that he would check the financial documents of the university. Chebakova assumes that they were frightened by the words “auditor” in the protocol drawn up at the constituent meeting of the trade union. “But the auditor is a person who checks the activities of the trade union organization,” she explains. “Apparently, they have some problems and in this regard, there were fears that someone would intervene in their financial activity.”

In response to the pressure and dismissal of employees, members of the University Solidarity trade union decided to draw the attention of workers to the situation, so that, according to Chebakova, "expand their ranks." Another reason for the activation of the activity was two orders of the rector: on “sudden and total examinations of students” “for the identification of drugs or traces of their use in the body (a positive result of analysis or refusal, according to the order, became the reason for deductions) and the establishment of uniform requirements for the appearance of students and teachers . Trade union activists prepared information sheets about what is happening at the university, including legal analysis of these orders and a call for unification as part of the University Solidarity. Early in the morning of October 29, Julia Chebakova and Alexei Parshukov stood near the entrance to the university and began to give out leaflets to students. As it turned out, they were already waiting there. Later, the trade union activists managed to get acquainted with the report, which was the senior operative center for countering the extremes of the South-Western District, Lieutenant Colonel V.A. Polyakov, the senior officer of the Center for Combating with leaflets: it was said that “immediately before the student entrance to the building,“ it was planned to conduct unauthorized picket citizens, and therefore, and therefore, and therefore The designated Poles “with the aim of fixing, namely, the works of audio and photography, in relation to citizens who bear intentions to conduct unauthorized propaganda measures, would consider using their own mobile phone.” And indeed-a certain person (it was not possible to establish whether it was Polyakov or someone else) photographed Chebakov and Parshukov, who distribute leaflets, after which he took a passport from Chebakova.

Report of Lieutenant Colonel A. Polyakov and photography from the case file

Chebakova suggests that with their distribution of leaflets “just fell by the arm”. The fact is that the order of the rector, which establishes the requirements for the appearance of students and teachers, caused a great resonance, including in the Muslim community, since, among other things, he defined as an unacceptable “clothing indicating a belonging to one or another nationality or religion”. In this regard, the Islamic activist and blogger Ali Charinsky for three days from eight in the morning stood in a single picket near the RNMU building, opposing the ban on wearing by students of the hijabs, and also published calls on the blog to join him. Apparently, information about the “intentions of the conduct of unauthorized agitation measures” arose precisely in connection with the calls of Charinsky. On October 29, when Chebakov and Parshukov were detained, Charinsky also stood near the building, but at the other entrance. Chebakova believes that the service of the RNMU security service - “because we are like a bone in the throat of the university,” offered to detain trade union activists.

The unknown took from Chebakova a passport even before Parshukov came up (“That is, even if it were considered a picket, he would be single,” Cesbakova notes). He introduced himself as an employee of the criminal investigation department Potapov (he showed the certificate very quickly, and Chebakova did not have time to make out his data) and said that Chebakova was suspected of some previously committed crimes. Parshukov was detained under the pretext that he did not have a passport with him. Yuri Branev (not related to RNMU), who was present there, was also presenting there, who was photographed by the university solidarity, but Potapov did not allow him to enter and said that a protocol on disobedience to the legal disposal of a police officer could be drawn up against him. They selected the documents from the girl who took the leaflet, but then the police officers who arrived returned the documents to her and released her. The passports of the detained "Potapov", according to Brausv, gave photograph the security of the university. They also approached Charinsky: he writes on the blog that the criminal investigation officers tried to drive him away or detain him, offered to drive with them, threatened, but in the end they did not achieve their own.

And the detainees to Chebakov, Parshukov and Bravyev were taken to the Obruchevsky police department and demanded to write explanations. They did not let go of the lecture and the conference. After some time, on Chebakov and Parshukov began to draw up protocols under Part 2 of Art. 20.2 (Organization or holding a public event without submitting a notification in the prescribed manner about a public event). At the same time, for some reason they demanded to indicate the place of work. According to Parshukov, the administration of the RNIMUtold the police that the University Solidarity is not a trade union organization. The police demanded from Chebakova and Parshukov to subscribe to the court on October 30 (at which court and at which hour was not reported), but it was possible to agree that they would be sent the summons. Neither the detention protocol nor the delivery protocol were drawn up. In total, the detainees spent more than eight hours in the police department.

Later it turned out that the RNMO Security Service provided the police with a large number of documents representing detainees in a bad light. “Apparently, they had a very great interest to create any troubles for us,” Chebakova suggests. Among the documents there were statements by the head of the Security Service that activists conducted a picket, “which is discarding the university”, and Chebakov and Parshukov attracted students and unauthorized persons to distribute leaflets (a separate statement was drawn up for each). The characteristics of the dean of the faculty, where activists worked, were also attached at all. It was said about Parshukov that in addition to “malicious violations of labor discipline”, “at the end of 2013 ... ethical violations, anti -governmental activities, and demonstrative behavior directed against the university administration began to show attempts to involve students in this activity.” It was separately noted that Parshukov "repeatedly participated in rallies and pickets, in particular, in Bolotnaya Square." It was said about Chebakova that she was always unfulfilled, but she asked for the post of deputy dealership to get better, but quickly lost interest in this activity and began to viciously violate labor discipline, and therefore was dismissed. Two testimony of students of the faculty were also introduced to the case, who wrote that they were given leaflets, as well as the minutes of the meeting of the university trade union committee and official notes of the acting The chairman that Chebakova and Parshukov did not give tasks to distribute leaflets and that they were not related to the trade union recognized by the official leadership.

The first court hearing was held in the Gagarinsky court on November 25. Chebakov and Parshukov demanded to call Lieutenant Colonel Polyakov to the court. The meeting was postponed to January 19. Polyakov did not appear, and activists of the University Solidarity were sentenced to fines of three thousand rubles.