Right when budget session archived and once the holiday break is over, in the first months of the new year the Barnum Circus of politics will move to referendum on the separation of careers, a confrontation that, before addressing aspects of justice and the trial, will involve a question of power. As he wrote: Sabino Cassese, prosecutors don't just build the charges, but they also pass judgment before the trial. "Just think of the press conferences where prosecutors are surrounded by law enforcement, announcing the charges with high-sounding headlines. The prosecutors don't respect the principle established by the Constitution inArticle 111, whereby the accused is informed "confidentially" of the nature and grounds of the accusation against them. The media then emphasize the accusations, which become a trial. Even when—as often happens, especially in the most serious cases—the judging magistrates acquit the accused, they end up, through their delays—Cassese continues—consolidating the accusation, which has become the guardian of virtue.
Basically, the uproar caused at the time of the investigations, from the moment the notice of investigation is sent, the pillory mechanism and perhaps even the recourse to precautionary custody end up being a completed phase of a sentence Independent of the ruling of a third-party judge, it is nevertheless bound to leave a mark on the integrity of the person involved. This operation involves meta-legal aspects that pertain to improper conduct, if not actual violations of the law.
In recent times, however, they are facts emerged where prosecutors' offices limit themselves to "doing justice" within their scope, without even involving third-party judges in assessing the legality of a behavior and in issuing sanctions. In practice, this has fulfilled the prosecutors' aspiration to have the first and final say in cases of alleged violations of the law.
In this new frontier of the process, the prosecutor's office par excellence stands out: that of Milan. In an article by Ermes Santonucci su The paper of November 28th (Confessions of a PM) the deputy prosecutor Paul Storari He admits: "I beg, I confess. But I objectively beg, perhaps for a good cause." And Storari also boasts of the successes of his substitute role: 50 workers internalized in companies and 60 million euros paid to workers.
The expansion of the crime of gangmastering: an ever-widening perimeter
La prosecutor of Milan he discovered a new trend in the field of criminal law and has started investigations involving several giants in the logistics, large-scale distribution, security and fashion sectors (a long list is published in the article) who are accused of violating the law on gangmastering, that is, the Law 199 / 2016, approved to fight against undeclared work and the exploitation of workers, introducing the crime of “illegal intermediation and exploitation of labour” and sanctioning both the gangmaster (the person who recruits) and the employer (the person who employs).
La law defines exploitation It is considered to be taking advantage of workers' neediness and carries severe penalties, including mandatory arrest, in cases of violence. This condition makes sense when applied—as the law requires—to an illegal immigrant, transported at dawn by a gangmaster to a tomato field. Unfortunately, the law has failed to achieve this goal. But it doesn't seem appropriate to speak of a "state of need" for a "security guard" or other professionals employed in the companies under investigation, because by this logic, anyone who works is in a state of need.
These questionable initiatives open a new chapter regarding the role of the investigating judiciary in the field of employment.
The approach chosen by the prosecutor's office tends to limit the matter to the investigation stage, without reaching a judge's verdict. Storari himself explained this while speaking at an MD conference: "We conduct non-punitive trials against companies. The moment they hire, pay taxes, and modify their organization, we stop." In essence, PM exercises an anomalous bargaining power in the sense of making use of the instruments of Law No. 199 (commissioning and seizure of assets) to obtain, at its discretion, advantages for workers from companies.
Let's look at some specific cases in security companies.
The “Milan model”
The Milan prosecutor's office has investigated Mondialpol, the largest private security company, has been subjected to judicial review for gangmastering and worker exploitation. The company, for its part, has taken action by imposing a substantial, staggered pay increase for its unarmed personnel, namely those who serve as ushers and doormen in public and private institutions. Having acknowledged the company's "effortful repentance," the prosecutor's office has revoked the judicial review.
After the case of the Mondialpol company (the same treatment was also used for sicuritalia) the diligent Milanese prosecutor's office has targeted another company in the sector, the Cosmopol, following a previously conducted procedure: the appointment of a judicial administration while investigations into the crimes of gangmastering and worker exploitation are ongoing. Cosmopol is a Campania-based company with 4 employees, a turnover of €132 million, and a profit of €6,5 million. Its staff also work in security roles at many major public and private companies, such as the Post Office, Enel, Leonardo, Fiera Milano, and Istituto San Paolo. This means that the company—like the others—was selected in compliance with legal procedures, perhaps according to the lowest bidder criterion.
Cosmopol is in fact forced to follow the example of Mondialpol: in practice, pay some sort of ransom to free oneself – through the revocation – of judicial control or the seizure of assets. This will accomplish the prosecutors' goal: resolving the dispute during the investigation phase, perhaps with the help of media and judicial pillorying.
After all, we know how these events work: all it takes is a little exaggeration, with the help of the prosecutors' "velinari" (speakers), to induce the companies that use these services to cancel their contracts, thus avoiding charges of gangmastering and worker exploitation.
In other cases – cited in the article de The paper – the prosecutor's office is using seizures to seize tens of millions: 146 million from BRT; 121 from Amazon; 86 from UPS; 84 from GXO; 48 from Esselunga, and so on with seizures of similar magnitude from a series of other well-known companies, such as Tod's.
A dispute that never reaches the judge
Management never meets with a judge, but is forced to settle the matter by negotiating with the prosecutor either unilateral wage payments or direct hiring of workers employed by subcontractors. It is understandable that companies have an interest in playing the game, rather than sitting for years awaiting a judgment and unable to manage their business. Agreement reached, the prosecutor's office closes the case.
It must be said that these companies do not express a particularly high level in the field of industrial relations, but apply the collective agreements stipulated with the trade union counterpartsWhat right does a magistrate have to consider a case of exploitation the outcome of negotiations conducted between opposing parties in a system of freedom and autonomy? If the application of the established rules constitutes the crime of worker exploitation, the unions should also be held liable for aiding and abetting.
It may be done for a good purpose, but whoever wears the toga should simply apply the laws, not to right wrongs through outright abuses of power bordering on extortion. The day will come when the law—as in the case of kidnappings for ransom—will freeze the victims' assets. In ItalyIn fact, rather than addressing abuses by prosecutors and individual magistrates, recourse is made to legislative intervention as in the case of the abolition of abuse of office.
