59 / 121
57
Cases in the area of employment
9.
Cuenca.
Employment.
Direct discrimination.
In January a collaboration agreement was signed with a group of
textile companies for eight Roma participants in the ACCEDER employment programme to engage in internships
in clothes shops selling well known brands in the city of Cuenca.
The internships were managed directly by the company representative at the head office who facilitated the
whole process so that everything would proceed seamlessly.
Before starting, the enterprise mediator visited all of the shops to meet the manager of each one and was cor-
dially received in every case.
The internships were to begin on March 11th and the enterprise mediator and a social mediator accompanied each
participant to their assigned shops and again, were all cordially received.
Throughout the entire internship (which lasted until April 3rd, 2014), we had ongoing contact with the girls re-
ceiving their practical training and the managers of each shop. Evaluation on both sides was very positive.
Once the training period had concluded, the enterprise mediator visited each of the shops to pick up the forms
and to get a final assessment of the experience. At one of the shops (where two girls did their training), she
discovered that there was a new manager who said that she had thrown the papers away because the enterprise
mediator had taken too long to come around to collect them and because the experience had not been positive.
When the enterprise mediator asked her why she thought that the experience was negative, especially consid-
ering that she had not supervised the training and the former manager had given them a positive assessment,
she said that it was because one of the girls went on sick leave the last week of her internship. The enterprise
mediator pointed out that her absence was justified by a medical report to which the manager forcefully re-
sponded “with these people, it’s always the same story”.
The enterprise mediator tried to inform her saying that any worker, in training or an employee, may become in-
disposed. In this case the absence was justified by a physician. She also told her that she had no business throw-
ing away a document that served as proof of training that had been agreed to by the group’s representatives.
10.
10.
Cuenca.
Employment.
Direct discrimination. The person in charge of the selection process for internships
at two hotels for girls taking a training course to become hotel chamber maids rejected candidates because
they were Roma.
The hotel managers were interested in our proposal until they discovered that the students could be Roma. That
was when he rejected our students. We say “could be” because we also have non-Roma who take part in our
training initiatives.
We followed up on this case by telephone. We tried several times to contact the manager but we were unsuc-
cessful.
11.
Cuenca.
Employment.
Direct discrimination.
In April, the Acceder programme’s labour market intermediation
department organised a visit to a private company in the hotel sector in Talavera de la Reina to set up a possible
internship programme for young Acceder Programme participants age 18-30.
The enterprise mediator and the coordinator of the Acceder programme in Talavera de la Reina attended the
first meeting and met with company’s manager. They provided him with information about our programme and
the different profiles of the job seekers we work with. When we mentioned that we work with young Roma he
said: “Gypsies are great at making a scene wherever they go.”
We have had no further contact with this company.