MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Germany –
Source: Switzerland – Canton Government of Basle Landscape
The media has repeatedly reported in recent weeks on a review of labor market control for the construction industry AMKB on a construction site in 2017. It has – consciously or unconsciously – come to wrong representations. The Economics and Health Directorate notes that its previous communication in this case was insufficient and therefore publishes a procedure to clarify the situation with the main steps to be taken in this case.
On Saturday, June 27, 2017, an unannounced inspection took place on a construction site in the canton of Basel-Landschaft by the labor market inspection for the construction industry AMKB (see row 1 according to separate list “Chronology of events”). In front of the house were two vans, at the house was obviously worked. In the course of the check it turned out that the craftsman rebuilt his own house. The AMKB subsequently made further clarifications and requested additional information from the craftsman. The inspected craftsman refused to submit the requested documents and did not do so until the check was completed. The inspection was completed without the required documents at the end of July 2017.
In a letter to Government Councilor Thomas Weber, Head of the Department of Public Health and Health VGD, he made a number of deficiencies in control at the end of August 2017 (6). The VGD confirmed receipt of his letter and that the letter would be treated as a regulatory complaint (8). With such a person can notify the respective supervisory authority on suspected grievances, but has no party rights. Thus, the notifying person is only to be informed about the execution of the supervisory report, without any claim to information about measures taken or any measures to be taken.
The information about the execution was given in a two-page letter to the craftsman at the end of October 2017 (9). The letter ended with the words “With this summary, we have informed you about the results of your regulatory report and consider it as done.” Although the letter was made in the letter that the question of the correct IDs, the canton in contact with the AMKB stand, was obviously the craftsman the impression that the control had run correctly from Canton point of view. However, this did not correspond to the view of the KIGA as a department responsible for technical matters or the VGD.
When the VGD cited a media request on March 14, 2018, that the AMKB inspectors had not been correct in one case and that the inspectors had been instructed accordingly (10), the craftsman turned to the VGD again and repeated his Complaints (11).
At the beginning of April 2018, the AMKB contacted the VGD by telephone because of the media coverage and stated that it had received no official complaints from KIGA, but it refused to submit that a check had not been made correctly and required a clarification of the facts.
On the basis of a memorandum to the head KIGA (12, originally commissioned by Secretary General VGD on the basis of the craftsman’s letter), AMKB was informed at a periodic meeting between KIGA and AMKB in mid-May 2018 which AMKB steps were taken by the Canton were assessed as incorrect (14). The AMKB did not agree with this rating.
At the annual review meeting in mid-June 2018, both sides presented their arguments in the presence of the leaders of the social partners and the head of the VGD. It was decided to hold the dispute at a separate meeting at the technical level (17).
At the end of June 2018, the arguments were exchanged at this meeting and the divergent views were discussed in depth:
Subject. In the opinion of KIGA, the control of a private person was sufficient information to stop the on-site inspection. The AMKB however wanted to have confirmed the statements of the craftsman in writing. Subject. Presenting ID cards, it was decided to harmonize the practice between KIGA and AMKB. Subject. Asking for documents in the field of illegal work (to clarify the employment relationship), AMKB had already adjusted its processes and thus ensured harmonization with KIGA’s processes. In addition, it was found that said craftsman never submitted the required documents.
In conclusion, it was concluded that the attitude of the AMKB regarding the expiry of the concrete control activity was […] justifiable and that there was no violation of the performance agreement (LMP) AMKB (19). In a letter, the KIGA confirmed this finding by AMKB in writing (22).
Subsequently, the third letter from the craftsman was answered in early September 2018 and he was informed that, on the basis of the file, the VGD had come to the conclusion that the check had been lawful (23).
In January 2019, the craftsman lodged a regulatory complaint with the full Government Council, reiterating the points already raised and claiming that the head of the VGD failed to act correctly, in particular his lack of responsibility for dealing with the prudential claim (24).
The VGD was subsequently invited to comment by the Legal Service of the Government and Landrat. The head VGD was in the game. The KIGA gave its opinion directly (25).
The Government Council decided on May 14, 2019 (under the leadership of the head VGD) not to comply with the regulatory complaint and published the decision (26/27). The craftsman has contacted the Data Protection Inspectorate to clarify the data protection aspects of the inspection. Their assessment is independent of the treatment of the regulatory complaint.
The head of the VGD, Government Councilor Thomas Weber, notes that
– the Governing Council has supported the assessment of the VGD in the specific case,
– it is part of the normal working process that, having considered the facts and considering the arguments of all the parties involved, an authority may or may not have to revise its opinion on the case,
– the communication of the VGD in the present control case in individual steps (letter to craftsmen, communication between KIGA and AMKB, information to the media) should have been clearer and regrets the resulting impression of a contradictory official behavior,
– he was well-informed throughout the process and respected the technical responsibilities,
– he has not commissioned a “legal opinion and then drawer it”,
– Since the beginning of the control work by the AMKB in 2017, neither the KIGA nor the VGD nor the government received any further complaints or even notices concerning the control work of the AMKB, this against about 1’000 inspections carried out annually.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should be the grammar and / or sentence structure not be perfect.