60 / 121
58
Discrimination and the Roma community, 2015
12.
Cuenca.
Employment.
Direct discrimination.
In March 2014 the enterprise mediation service of the FSG’s
Cuenca office spoke with the person in charge of recruitment at the human resources department of a company
in Madrid after seeing a job opening in the cleaning sector. The FSG sent the company several CVs. In April, May
and June, four women were hired (three Roma and one non-Roma). When the last contract was signed (Roma
woman) a conflict arose between the contracting company and the company subcontracting the cleaning ser-
vice at a shopping centre. This dispute led to a series of discriminatory comments and acts against the majority
of the cleaning personnel who are Roma.
13.
Talavera de la Reina.
Employment.
Direct discrimination.
This case was brought to us by a participant in our
Acceder training programme. A young Roma man taking part in the training brought this situation to our attention
and requested that it be recorded as a case of discrimination.
He explained that he and some friends went a well known pub in Talavera de la Reina. They went there several
times and noticed how they raised the prices every time they went in an attempt to discourage them from
coming back. One of the employees told them ‘off the record’ that they were jacking the prices up on purpose.
He told them that they didn’t want Gypsies coming in.
14.
Salamanca.
Employment.
Direct discrimination.
This case is very similar to one that occurred last year but
with the aggravating circumstance that it is a repeat offence.
The Fundación Secretariado Gitano detected two irregularities in the 10th Call for IMPEFE Grants (Municipal insti-
tute for economic advancement, training and employment) to support entrepreneurial activity, published in the
Official Gazette (No. 213) of Salamanca on 28 October 2014.
A close look at the call revealed that for aid type I “direct non-repayable grant” (Chapter 2), the 10% eligible
investment could be increased by 5% if the grantees belonged to certain groups.
Aid type III “Grants encouraging recruitment” (Chapter IV), was likewise reserved for certain groups. Where per-
manent contracts were given to people belonging to any of these groups, a grant of EUR 1 000 was received.
The Roma community was not included among the groups listed for either of the two types of aid.
This was especially surprising in the case of aid type III “Grants encouraging recruitment” where the following
groups were included: Women, young people up to age 30, people over 45, people with disabilities (33% disa-
bility rate and above), first-time employment seekers, long-term unemployed persons, ex drug users (off drugs
for at least one year prior to the application date), immigrants and former prison inmates. A 25% increase was
available if those hired were beneficiaries of programmes run by the employer or women from shelters. In other
words, virtually all groups in risk of social exclusion except for ethnic minorities and the Roma community were
listed thus preventing the Roma community from benefiting.
We consider this to be deliberate and intentional discrimination by virtue of omission on the part of a public
body. It is our understanding that IMPEFE is responsible for promoting the social inclusion of groups in risk of
exclusion such as those listed in the Call, but it should also look out for ethnic minorities. And that includes the
Roma community. We believe that this is a serious omission and has occurred in similar calls in previous years.
This is especially serious considering that IMPEFE is a member of networks devoted to “combating discrimina-
tion in the labour market” such as the network known as the “Local Employment Pact” and another called the “Red
Retos” (challenge network) whose aim is to form a network of socially responsible territories.
Last year we addressed the omission of Roma from the groups listed by: