|
msc_de (OP)
|
 |
June 19, 2015, 06:43:48 PM |
|
苏雨桐拒与德国之声和解，法庭驳回其诉讼请求
(博讯北京时间2015年6月19日 综合报道)
6月18日，德国之声前记者苏雨桐诉德国之声违法辞退案，在波恩劳工法庭开庭，开庭后法官首先表示愿意促成双方和解，苏雨桐拒绝接受和解。双方简单陈述，法庭议后宣布，苏雨桐于去年8月19日被德国之声立即停职应在三周内向法院申请要求对方撤除处理决定，因此诉讼时效已过；因苏雨桐的合同期截止期限为2014年12月31日，因此对劳工权利的请求不具主体资格。
苏雨桐拒与德国之声和解，法庭驳回其诉讼请求
苏雨桐表示在法庭上没有足够的陈述时间，但清晰表明态度：不会接受和解，因为德国之声对其立即解职，是一个政治原因的解职，不仅涉及劳工权利还包括尊严。
苏雨桐也表示理解这个结果，因为大陆法系与英美法系的不同，因此法庭只能根据成文法条去判定这个劳工法范畴的案件，其政治背景不能成为依据；虽然法官明确表示知晓整个背景和经过。她说最遗憾是诉讼时效的问题：“对德国法律的不了解，这是我本人必须承担的代价。等到正式的判决书下达后，我会和律师再协商如何进行下一步，但毫无疑问的是，我拒绝和解的同时就做好了上诉的准备。过程有时候比结果更重要，也更有价值。”
对于记者关注的“和解”，苏雨桐说：当法官开始表示促成和解时，我已经判断出结果，就是我会输掉官司，法官了解整个案件背景，可能是在成文法的硬性规定之外，希望体现公平正义的原则，对处于弱势的我给予一些权利保护，甚至有他们的价值判断和立场在其中；当然案例的和解只能有一种方式，就是德国之声给予一定的经济补偿，而不是让我这个批评林伯格(德国之声台长Peter Limbourg )的人重回中文部。这样的和解我能接受吗，当然不能，去参加旁听的朋友当时都不太理解我的选择，我告诉他们如果当初为了稳定的工资，我也会选择和德国之声大多数人一样，不会去批评林伯格；和解附加的条件有可能是让人闭嘴，让人交出勇气，那些不公正的细节远未澄清，我过不了自己心理的这道红线，我会不安，虽然倔强的女人并不可爱，还会付出更多的社会成本，可我此时选择倔强。这是我的态度。”
附，苏雨桐在法庭上没有能够完成的陈述
在这个诉讼中，作为当事人，我认为这不是一个普通的劳工案件。请允许我回顾德国之声开除我理由和简单经过：
2014年8月19日，德国之声以“泄露工作秘密”、“攻击同事”为理由，让我立即停止工作并且离开德国之声。2015年6月4日，德国之声驻北京记者Frank Sieren发表了文章《从天安门到莱比锡》，美化中共在1989年的“六四屠杀”行为，对此我向德国之声负责人提出抗议。另外我也批评和抗议德国之声台长Peter Limbourg上任后亲共的报道方向。这些抗议的内容公开在我的个人社交网络twitter,fackboo,google plus 上，成为德国之声指控我“泄露工作秘密”和“攻击同事“的理由.
在我被辞退后，德国之声在德文网站和英文网站上刊发辞退声明，此声明也被中共官媒引用并报道，攻击我为”反华记者“；德国之声也多次在德文网、英文网站以新闻声明的形式，强调将我开除的理由为泄密；2014年11月，Frank Sieren起诉我侵犯他的个人名誉，在法院给我的证据中，包括德国之声本应只给我个人的财务文件。后来Frank Sieren撤诉。
2014年12月我以自诉的方式，向波恩劳工法院提起诉讼；后来获得德国记者协会的帮助，为我聘请Mr Rüther担任我的律师。我相信我的律师，因此撤回原来的自诉并重新起诉。但我提请法院将2014年12月7日我的自诉起诉书，作为这次诉讼的文献组成部分。
从2010年8月12日到2014年8月19日，我在德国之声担任记者的4年间，在规定的工作时间内，在德国之声中文部的办公室完成主管指定的内容；据德国之声网站公开显示的数据，上面有我1465篇采访报道，每月文章的点击率排名一直是中文部最前列。这些报道也被其他媒体和网站大量转载和引用。德国之声律师称对我的解雇出于“更新血液”的目的，请问为何选择逆向淘汰？
2015年2月13日的庭前会面时，我的律师表示：因为德国之声不仅是侵犯了苏雨桐的劳工权利，还有她的尊严，因此我们不接受任何和解时。用人单位解雇或停止雇用员工，前提必须是依照法律，并且程序合法。我的律师已经提出证据证明我的雇员身份，而且他们辞退我的程序显示着权力的傲慢与粗暴，也是不合法的。
最后我想强调的是，我的朋友，德国之声专栏作者高瑜，因为对中国政府的批评被判7年有期徒刑，我在德国发表了那么多披露中共真相的批评性报道，我还拥有自由；尽管因为批评德国之声的亲共方向而丢掉工作，但我还是幸运的；我可以站在法庭上维护自己的合法劳动权利，捍卫一个记者的尊严。感谢法官，感谢我的律师，感谢德国之声的律师及德国之声代表。
STATEMENT
As the plaintiff, I do not believe this is an ordinary case of labor dispute. Please allow me to briefly recap how and why I was dismissed by the Deutsche Welle (DW):
On August 19, 2014, DW ordered me to stop working immediately and leave DW for “divulging work-related secrets” and “defaming colleagues.” This has to do with DW publishing an article by Frank Sieren, DW’s Beijing correspondent, on June 5, 2014. This article, titled Von Tiananmen nach Leipzig, plays down, and defends, the massacre occurred on June 4, 1989, in Beijing. I protested against DW’s publication of it. I also criticized the pro-Chinese Communist Party direction that DW reporting had been taking since the appointment of Mr. Peter Limbourg as the head of the DW. These complaints and criticisms, posted on my personal social media accounts such as Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus. It is based on these expressions that DW accuses me of “divulging work-related secrets” and “defaming colleagues.”
Following my dismissal, DW published statement about the dismissal on its German- language website and English-language website. This DW statement was then reported and cited by the Chinese state-controlled media that portrayed me as an “anti-China journalist.” Later, DW repeatedly emphasized on its German and English websites that I was dismissed because I divulged secrets. On November, 2014, Frank Sieren filed a lawsuit against me for defamation. Among the evidence the court showed to me was my personal financial statement from DW that I alone have the right to access. Frank Sieren later withdrew his lawsuit against me.
In December, 2014, I filed a lawsuit on my own in the labor court in Bonn against DW. Later I received help from the Deutscher Journalisten-Verband (German Federation of Journalists). The organization hired Mr. Rüther to be my counsel. Following my counsel’s advice, I withdrew my original suit and started a new lawsuit. I hereby ask the court to include the filing documents I presented to the labor court in Bonn on December 7, 2014, in the documents of the current suit.
I worked at DW from August 12, 2010, to August 19, 2014. During the four years as a journalist, I always completed my work, as assigned to me by my supervisors, in the office of the Chinese service during the designated work hours. According to the statistics publicly displayed on the DW website, I wrote 1,465 reports, and my articles had consistently ranked No. 1 in monthly page view ranking. These reports of mine were also reposted and cited by other media outlets and websites. The counsels representing DW said that DW had dismissed me in order to “get new blood.” My question for DW is this: Why did they choose to dismiss their most prolific, most-read journalist?
At the pre-trial meeting on February 13, 2015, my lawyer stated that DW not only violated Yutong Su’s labor rights but also her dignity, therefore we did not consider any reconciliatory settlement. When hiring or firing an employee, an employer must abide by the law, and the procedures they use to conduct the hiring or firing must also accord with the law. My counsel has presented evidence that I was an employee of DW, and that the procedures by which DW dismissed me were unlawful.
Finally I want to emphasize that my friend and DW columnist Gao Yu was recently sentenced to 7 years in prison for criticizing the Chinese government, while I still have my freedom in Germany after writing so many reports exposing the truth about the CCP. I am very fortunate even though I lost my job for criticizing the pro-CCP direction of DW, and I’m still able to stand in the court to defend my legitimate labor rights and my dignity as a journalist. I thank the court, the judge and my counsel, and I also thank DW’s counsels and representatives.
[博讯综合报道] (Modified on 2015/6/19) (博讯 boxun.com)
2181112
|
