Posts under ‘Michiel Brandjes’

EXTRACTS: A Dutch national has contacted me to express concern over a matter involving NAM, the company owned jointly by Royal Dutch Shell Plc and ExxonMobil Corporation. It may all be perfectly legal and a lucrative enterprise for the German companies involved, but is it ethical on the part of the NAM and the German companies bearing in mind potential exposure to the Dutch and German population during the long journeys involved and to the local populations in the relevant Germany cities where the processing takes place?

On 3 June former employees of the Shell Berre Petrochemical Refinery will mount a major protest at Shell’s Paris HQ – a photograph of a banner prepared for the protest is displayed.

The protest has been organised by a group of Shell unions. Background information about why 1600 French former Shell employees feel driven to protest against their treatment by Shell is contained in the letters which have been translated into English.  Because they contain extremely serious allegations against Shell, including fraudulent behaviour, we sent them to Royal Dutch Shell Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes on Monday. No reply has been received. Apparently this is one of the occasions when Shell feels it best to say nothing. 

A version of this article is published on Blogger News Net: 

1600 French former Shell employees declare war on the oil giant

The self-explanatory email and letters: - 

EMAIL TO MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY AND GENERAL COUNSEL CORPORATE, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:37:50 +0100
To: “michiel.brandjes@shell.com” <michiel.brandjes@shell.com>
Cc: “Roger.HaddadParfait@lyondellbasell.com” <Roger.HaddadParfait@lyondellbasell.com>
Conversation: Sale of Berre Petrochemical Refinery to LyondellBasell Industry (PA)
Subject: Sale of Berre Petrochemical Refinery to LyondellBasell Industry (PA)

Dear Mr Brandjes
 
The letters below have been supplied in an English translation by a French trade union official, Mr Roger Haddad-Parfait.

His contact details are as follows:

HADDAD-PARFAIT Roger
SCAD INFINEUM
Compagnie Pétrochimique de Berre
BP 14, 13131  Berre l’étang, Cedex, France

If Shell does not take issue with the facts as stated, then there is no need to reply. If I receive no response by 3pm tomorrow UK time, I will assume that the information and allegations are unchallenged by Shell. If Shell is taking legal action in relation to the allegations, then please advise accordingly.

If you need more time to check matters out, then kindly let me know when we can expect a response and we will take no further action until then.

If you want to supply for publication with the letters any related comment by Shell, we will happily publish it on an unedited basis.

This is an important story which deserves publication in the English language.
 
Best Regards
John Donovan

THE LETTERS

CFDT, CFE/CGC, CFTC, CGT, FO

Site CPB/CDH de Lyondellbasell Berre (ex SHELL)

Shell must assume its social responsibilities

On 1st April 2008, Shell sold the Berre Petrochemical with 1600 employees attached, to LyondellBasell Industry (PA) despite the negative advices raised by the five unions and elected members, worried about the extreme fragility of the LBI group on debt.
 
Shell was committed by agreement to maintain the vested interests till end 2010 and the plan for employment protection till end 2009. However, LBI stating a bankruptcy situation has been brought after less than eight month of operation, to place the company under the protection of chapter 11 of US bankruptcy code, which was recorded by the competent courts on 6th Jan 2009.
 
The employees could state the fact that no provision was made between Shell and LBI to insure the effectiveness of social interests!
 
While the social liabilities represents 120 millions €, Shell has set aside a part of the environment risk for 350 millions. Shell never planned something for the employees. Swans and flamingos are more well treated than the workers!!!!
 
Shell Group announcing a profit of more than 31 billions of USD for 2008, the five unions of the Berre Site require the respect of the commitments!
 
All peoples are concerned about this emblematic case, the whole employees, political and economic makers of our country by asking a fundamental question:
 
Is an employer can take away the initiative to transfer its employees to a third party without ensuring that he is able to take the social commitments that they would enjoy?

Business ethics and the principles of loyalty, responsibility and good faith requires an unanimous answer: an employer who does not ensure the ability of the counterparty to assume the social commitments that he himself negotiated, must assume the consequences vis-à-vis its employees, without limitation or qualification.

LETTER FROM ALL OF THE RELEVANT UNIONS
TO THE DIRECTORS OF SHELL 

Gentlemen,
 
In 2008, the Shell group carried out a reorganisation of Shell Pétrochimie Méditerrannée and Société des Pétroles Shell, via the transfer of the activities of the Berre site to two companies that fit the finance industry’s definition of “shell companies” (no pun intended), “Compagnie des Hydrocarbures” (”CDH”) and “Compagnie Pétrochimique de Berre” (”CPB”) with a view to transferring these activities outside the group.
 
This structuring led to the transfer of more than 1,600 Shell employees to these entities.
 
As a result of this reorganisation, in April 2008, Shell sold CPB and CDH to “Lyondell Basell”, a newly established group controlled throughout various offshore companies by Mr Len Blavatnik, an elusive Russian oligarch.

As part of this transfer and given employee scepticism regarding the acquirer’s credibility, Shell strove to present this group as a flourishing, prosperous group capable of ensuring the employees of the Berre site the growth of their activities over the long-term. Accordingly, Shell committed itself contractually that the benefit of the company agreements and other plans covering the employees at Shell would continue to exist for them after the transfer, over and above what is required by law.
 
For the sake of completeness, it is important to bear in mind that the value of these rights exceeds EUR 500 million.
 
Less than eight months after this sale, the holding companies of the Lyondell Basell Group were forced to apply for bankruptcy under the American system (chapter 11) and 13 of this group’s 16 French entities, including CPB and CDH, were the subject of alert procedures implemented by their auditors and their works council. The information communicated at the time did not satisfy the company auditors, who are contemplating referring the matter to the courts having jurisdiction.
 
During the alert procedure of the works council, we noted a scandalous level of indebtedness (in excess of US$ 26.000.000.000!) and the extreme fragility of the financial structure set up   by Len Blavatnik at the time of the acquisition of the Berre site and above all, the total absence of any financial guarantee whatsoever intended to ensure the effective service of the transferred rights!

In view of the disastrous situation of the Lyondell Basell Group, the thousands of transferred Shell employees are now alone and physically deprived of the rights they  had acquired.
 
This situation is intolerable!

Less than a year ago, Shell sold us to an over-indebted group – truly a house of cards, driven solely by the appetite for profit of the person pulling all the strings – and totally incapable of performing the obligations committed to vis-à-vis the employees.

Shell, surrounded by many advisors, was at the time (and still is) fully aware of the real nature, the financial situation and the physical inability of Len Blavatnik to perform the obligations to which Shell had it commit. As part of a genuine hindrance to employees’ rights of representation, Shell knowingly lied with respect to the guaranties and the real prospects that this over-indebted group was able to offer, as well as to the risks incurred by the employees: risks that were confirmed the day of the transaction and that are now materialising, less than eight months after the transaction!
 
Shell’s behaviour has been fraudulent and unfair vis-à-vis both the representatives of the Group’s employees and the 1,600 employees concerned.

Shell and its directors bear both civil and criminal liability.

In view of this situation, we urge Shell’s directors to immediately begin a constructive dialogue with the employee representatives of CPB and CDH, in order to guarantee all of the employees concerned the due and complete fulfilment of the rights they hold under the “PSE” [job-saving plan] and the transferred agreement.
 
Should Shell and its directors fail to do so immediately, the trade unions, works councils and employees reserve the right to initiate any legal proceedings necessary to protect their rights and to denounce the criminal behaviour in this matter.

ENDS

LONDON (Dow Jones)–Royal Dutch Shell plc Wednesday announced a series of changes to senior management roles and responsibilities, aimed at sharper focus on operating performance and technology, effective July 1

SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT…. Shell, half the truth and the cover-up….

By Alfred and John Donovan 

In 1974 it was reported that a Shell employee, Leo Rapmund (36), a crewmember on the Shell tanker, ‘Capulonix’, had gone missing, presumed lost overboard.
 
Over two decades later Rapmund’s family was contacted by a fellow crewmember at the time of the tragedy who wanted to clear his conscience about his knowledge of what really happened. Basically he revealed that Leo Rapmund had been murdered and there were many eyewitnesses to the crime.  

The family claim that when they contacted Shell in 1995 with this alarming news, Shell and its lawyers (the most prestigious and expensive law firm in the Netherlands,  De Braauw, Blackstone & Westbroek) denied any knowledge or responsibility and treated them in a disgusting and arrogant manner. All responsibility and accountability were rejected. The family was fobbed-off like a bunch of nagging children.  
 
In 2008, the family contacted the acclaimed Dutch investigative crime reporter Peter R. de Vries who has his own Emmy Award winning TV programme.  De Vries has been involved in a number of high profile cases including that of Natalee Holloway, the American student who mysteriously disappeared in 2005 while on a high school graduation trip to the Caribbean Island of Aruba.  
 
De Vries approached Shell HQ in The Hague on 23 February 2009 and spoke with a senior Shell Public Relations official, Herman Kievits. His response was described as arrogant, at arms length and mainly on the lines that ‘we know nothing’.  The same holds true for the lawyers.
 
On 26 April 2009 Peter R. de Vries presented the case in his TV programme. Afterwards a number of viewers contacted Shell and expressed disgust at these cover-ups by the oil company.
 
The viewers who reacted towards Shell, all received a rather clumsy standard reaction with many half-truths. The facts however are totally different and in his unique manner Peter R. de Vries dissects all the nonsense by Shell and provides substantial evidence on what really happened. He tracked down a dozen witnesses of the murder. They all confirmed that Leo Rapmund had been in a fight on board and was shoved overboard. He managed to just hang on to the railing but his assailant had kicked his hands so long that he had to let go and disappeared forever in the waves. This act was unanimously described as ‘murder’. The witnesses were greatly surprised that they never have been formally heard nor summoned in a court case.
 
De Vries also makes mincemeat of all the statements by Shell and detailed evidence is provided on his website. He exposes Shell as a bunch of liars. In the end Shell even had to admit in a letter to him that they ‘did not know’ what happened to the assailant and why he had not been charged. Shell even did not know whether the man had been fired or not. That in itself is strange: on a tanker of Shell a Shell employee is literally kicked overboard by another Shell employee, but Shell subsequently never informs how all this has been handled in a legal matter.

Therefore it was nice that in the meantime aging offender is still alive. He told de Vries that the handling of the case also amazed him. After the incident he was taken from Singapore to the head office in Rotterdam. There he had to hand-over his passport and was sent home on extended leave. After half a year he was summoned again, received his passport back as well as six months of pay, was in a proper manner shown the door by Shell and subsequently signed on immediately with another company as a sailor. Done. Never heard anything anymore.
 
In his summary de Vries states:
It is simply embarrassing that Shell tried to blame the relatives of Leo that they all that time have not understood and that they more or less tried to misuse the situation for their own benefit.

De Vries points out that a multinational faced with such unfortunate circumstances can apologise and compensate the victims family or deny all allegations and NEVER admit to anything.  He concludes Shell is in the latter category behaving in a vicious and shameful manner.
 
After Leo Rapmund was killed, this is another form of character murder on the next of kin, which also remains unpunished. In that sense de Vries claims to have more respect for the aging assailant, who after so many years admits his act and honestly says he deserved prison. That Shell kicks the family and refrains from any form of an apology is a scandal. And it shows very clearly how the next biggest oil company of the world can be very small…..
 
The information comes from an article publish by Peter R. De Vries in Dutch. It includes reference to a long email to Shell setting out facts and evidence, which Shell ultimately agreed was basically correct.

http://www.peterrdevries.nl/ 

ARTICLE ENDS

The above article was sent in advance of publication to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel, Royal Dutch Shell Plc. The relevant email is printed below. Since Shell chose not to reply on this occasion, we assume this is one of the  times when Shell decided the safest thing to do is to say nothing. 

From: Alfred Donovan <alfred@shellnews.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:36:37 +0100
To: “michiel.brandjes@shell.com” <michiel.brandjes@shell.com>
Conversation: SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT
Subject: SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT

Dear Mr Brandjes
 
The draft article below is based on the article in Dutch recently published by Peter R. de Vries…
 
SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT…. Shell, half the truth and the cover-up….
 
http://www.peterrdevries.nl/

The gist of the content was kindly provided by a Dutch Shell insider. Although not having time to provide a full translation, the draft does contain some translated passages.
 
Could you kindly point out any significant error of fact before I publish it? If Shell does not take issue with the facts as stated, then there is no need to reply. If I receive no response by 12 noon tomorrow UK time, I will assume that the information is true. If you need more time to check out matters, then kindly let me know when we can expect a response and we will take no further action until then.

If Shell is taking legal action challenging the facts, then please advise accordingly and we will await the outcome of any such litigation.

If you want to supply for publication with the article any related comment by Shell, we will happily publish it on an unedited basis.

This is an important story which deserves publication in the English language.
 
Regards
Alfred Donovan

EXTRACT FROM EMAIL RECEIVED FROM JONATHAN MORT, LEGAL ADVISOR (AND MANAGER?), SHELL SOUTH AFRICA PENSION FUND: It is apparently my draft response (per the email of 15 February 2009) to Mr Purchase (on 18 February 2009) which has driven you to the conclusions of conspiracies, collaborations and unethical conduct so liberally sprinkled through your article. The truth is more mundane, entirely proper, and (sadly for your website) considerably less newsworthy than the spectacular claims made in your draft article.

I refer to the draft article you intend publishing on your website http//royaldutchshellplc.com, as set forth in an email from yourself to Mr Brandjes on 25 March 2009 at 18h28. Thank you for giving me the opportunity of correcting some facts of which you may not have been aware.

From: <richard.wiseman@shell.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:22:14 +0100
To: <john@shellnews.net>
Cc: <Wanjiru.Kirima@shell.com>, <T.Wood@shell.com>, <jmort@ens.co.za>, <kenpurchase@risumbe.com>, <paddybriggs@brandaware.co.uk>, <michiel.brandjes@shell.com>
Subject: RE: Royal Dutch Shell Pension Fund Conspiracy and Deception

Just to confirm, we have nothing to add to the replies already given to Mr Purchase.

Regards

Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office:  Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

Printed below is a draft article. It contains my interpretation of the information contained in email correspondence supplied to me by Shell SA retiree, Mr Ken Purchase. No doubt you will advise if any of the emails are not authentic. If I do not hear from you by close of business on Friday 27 March, I will take it that there is no dispute or challenge over authenticity, stated facts, nor my interpretations or conclusions, and will state as such.

Geneva-based Covalence published on 20 January 2009 its annual ethical ranking covering 541 multinationals. According to information on their website “Covalence’ s ethical quotation system is a reputation index based on quantifying qualitative data, which is classified according to 45 criteria such as Labour standards, Waste management, Product social utility or Human rights policy. It is a barometer of how multinationals are perceived in the ethical field.” Out of 541 multinationals surveyed, Shell is ranked near the bottom, at 510 overall, alongside the likes of the tobacco companies and Halliburton.

You will recall the white worms, dying trees and plants in my garden callously dismissed by you at the time as “your horticultural problems” – those “problems” subsequently ruined the lives of my family.