Wednesday, 19 August 2015 18:54

In memoriam (English)

Written by

Yesterday was the funeral of my father and may he rest in peace! Officially he passed away from cancer and until the very end he was sending his greetings to the good people in Bulgaria, Finland and elsewhere. And trying to make the World a better place, as the Greens like to say, here I shall disclose some dark shadows around newfinns.com which have also accelerated the disease of my father.

Even though the Finish Police has so far rejected 2 official appeals for investigation, the things around me and newfinns way of thoughts developed as follows – at the end of 2013 I wrote an article “To my Finland with love”, which made some of my bosses “worried” about me. Then at the beginning of February 2014 I met with the then Finish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen and gave him the paper which resulted in the fact that my bosses forced me to visit a psychiatrist at Suomen Terveystalo, which is the medical-service contractor of my employer. The document Dnro ESAVI/1636/05.13.05.02/2014 presented below is part of a kind of investigation done by the Regional Administrative Office of Southern Finland (AVI) and all presented in it names and events are real. In question are about 3 very heavy months, during which the representatives of my employer were giving false and controversial statements about me and my behaviour, manipulating the doctors’ work. The latter got my relatives in Bulgaria and especially my father really worried and stressed – a fact that quite surely deteriorated the health of my father, who later in 2014 was diagnosed with cancer.

Hence and unfortunately on the background of www.newfinns.com lay some really dark discrimination, harassment and defamation, about which as a Finn from the New generation I dare to speak. Because really our society has been for too long silent about such dark things and it’s really time to wake up and renew our way of thinking.

P.S. I could well presume that the presented here facts may result in further insults or damages towards me, but I refuse to accept the unlawfulness, harassment and criminal silence as normal. On the basis of the facts presented below (I have more) AVI concluded that the things are OK and the Finish Police rejected two official appeals for investigation. You could read and conclude for yourself. 

Because of my father and our better presence and future I am trying my best to bring the things legally forward – as far as it is still possible in Finland? The text below is a translation from Finnish and is based on well documented evidence presented as attachments, which for now are left in Finnish.  

Kind regards                                                                                          

Rosti

www.newfinns.com

Helsinki 19.08.2015

Dnro ESAVI/1636/05.13.05.02/2014.

Dear Lea Kivinen (a clerk from the Regional State Administrative Agency of Southern Finland), regarding the answers given to you by Kauppalehti, next I shall comment the requested by you points. Once again I want to point out that the answers of my employer are very controversial. For clarity I shall follow them point by point:

1) Why the employer has not dealt with the heavy workload of Dinkov earlier, since it was an issue for a longer period.

To which my employer now replies: “The employer has not been concerned with the workload of Dinkov for a longer period”. What then mean:

-       During the last year the employer has been concerned with the condition of Rostislav and the change of his state of mind. Since the beginning of the year Rostislav has been exhausted. See attachment 21.3.pdf (given by the employer to the employer’s doctor)

-       Because of exhaustion Rostislav has been on sick leave since 18.3.2014 see. attachment 4.4pdf (given by the employers doctor)

Taking into account that the person, who has ordered me to visit the employer’s doctor was my supervisor Tatu Kaskela, as well as that during the process of exploration of my health condition, the representatives of my employer Tatu Kaskela and Heini Heikkilä spoke on my behalf more than me, how do you perceive my employers statements given above?

Shall I once again state that after the sudden departures of my colleagues Susy ( in June 2013, see the attachment Susy’s departure.pdf as well as the workload of Susy.pdf) and Mika (in November 2013)  for some period I was obliged to do their job as well. Despite the lowered staff we finished the year with income over 20 % above the budget.  Yes, it’s true that I did not do much overtime, but after the unexpected departures of my colleagues we simply had to fulfil their working duties, within the same timeframe.

Yes it’s true that I used to have opened international applications (UN and EU) as well as that my employer, Otto Mattsson, Tatu Kaskela and J-P Loimuvuori, have agreed to be my referees to them, but this was one of the shocking for me setbacks, when on 12.5.2014 my referee Otto Mattsson announced that I have two choices, that I must sign up an offered by him contract to quit or to be illegally laid-off. All of that happened immediately after on 9.5.2014 it was agreed that I have to go back to work at half-time. As a matter of fact the termination of my working contract put an end to my international applications and jeopardised my professional development as a whole.

2) Did the employer discuss with Dinkov about the increase of his workload and the renewed performance targets, before the redistribution of the tasks of the departed colleagues?

To what Kauppalehti now answers: “ The employer does not know about what increase of Dinkov’s workload and redistribution of tasks the question refers.” ?

Shall I once again state that after the sudden departures of my colleagues Susy ( in June 2013, see the attachment Susy’s departure.pdf as well as the workload of Susy.pdf) and Mika (in November 2013)  for some period I was obliged to do their job as well. Despite the lowered staff we finished the year with income over 20 % above the budget. Yes, it’s true that I did not do much overtime, because after the unexpected departures of my colleagues we had to also fulfil their working duties, but within the same timeframe. (see the attachments Tuottavuus viimeisen päälle.pdf).

3) Why the employer gave controversial statements about Dinkov’s performance at work? Who measured Dinkov’s performance and on what basis it was done?

Towhich the employer now answers: “ According to us, the employer has not given misleading statements about Dinkov’s performance”. What then mean the statements given by the employer to the working doctor in written as follows:

- Notes of the working doctor (see attachment 21.3.pdf) – “Rostislav has fulfilled his duties well”. But then, for same strange reason in the note of 4.4.2014 (see attachment 4.4_1.pdf) is stated, that I have not coped well with my working duties, as the latter came to my knowledge later on, on 18.8.2014, after the working doctor gave me the notes of the statements given to him by my employer (quite likely Tatu Kaskela). Then again I want to point out that during the whole process of the imposed by my employer medical check, Mr. Kaskela behaved very controversially, aiming to deteriorate my health instead of improving it. I have more evidence about that, but will give it only in a Police investigation –  a procedure we, me and my lawyer Tero Peltonen, asked long ago (see. attachment Peltonen 15.10.2014.pdf). Hence I again appeal for Police investigation or another legal solution. 

4) Why Dinkov has not been allowed to return to work after at the end of the medical check it was agreed that he shall return on part-time.

What happened was that on 12.5.2014 Otto Mattsson (the chief of the department) told me that I have two choices: 1) to sign a written by him document of my lay-off or 2) that I will be laid-off  illegally, even though on 9.5.2014 (see the document 9.5.pdf) it was agreed that I return back to work. Furthermore, how do you understand the statements given by my employer now, that on (9.5.2015) my working condition was fully in shape? If that was true, why the working doctor Seppo Salonen stated that I shall return to work on half-time (50%) and why my relatives came to pick me up from Bulgaria – a fact proven by 8 notary certified statements brought from Bulgaria? Or why on 14.5.2014 Seppo Salonen (see attachment 18.8_1.pdf) would write: “If Rostislav wants more examinations or support I shall make him appointment to the public healthcare. In reality after 3 months of severe harassment, defamation and discrimination done by my employer, at the end of my medical check (in May), my health condition was at its poorest state, compared to whatever earlier stage. And if the notary certified statements brought from Bulgaria are not enough, in Finland you could question Mirjam Louhekari, Larysa Gryadunova, Jussi Tanskanen, Dobromir Doraliiski, doctor Alexander Voynov, Marin Marinov, Katya Vassileva, Lazarina Valcheva as well as my colleagues from Kauppalehti.

And here I want to once again show a written controversy given by representatives of my employer. According to the lawyer of Kauppalehti  Petteri Uoti (see. Uoti.pdf, sent to my lawyer Tero Peltonen on 4.9.2014): “on 12.5.2014 Rostislav and the employer discussed about Rostislav’s working contract. In that discussion, the employer offered to end up Dinkov’s contract and that they agree about some reimbursement for that.”

But then in an e-mail sent to me by Otto Mattsson on 19.9.2014 (see. Otto Mattsson.doc) we read:

”… I will gladly help you to get a positive working certificate, as I don’t see necessary to mention in it about the events at the end, which have resulted in termination of your working contract....”. I want to ask about what, to me, to my lawyer and to the lawyer of Kauppalehti unknown end events does Otto Mattsson infer?

I consider the document terminating my working contract illegal and imposed. For clearing the matter I request a proper Police Investigation. 

5) Who did the decision of Dinkov’s lay off after the medical check? On what ground was the decision taken?

To what now the representative of my employer answers – “ Dinkov did the decision alone”. Once again to clear the claim I ask for a proper Police investigation.

6)Why Dinkov had to sign a lay-off declaration during his sick leave?

To what now the employer answers. “Dinkov had not been obliged to sign anything during his sick leave”. Once again to clear the claim I ask for a proper Police investigation.

7)Has Dinkov ever been warned of his aggressive behaviour at work? Do you have any prove of Dinkov’s aggressiveness? 

To which the employer now answers: “ We don’t understand the question. The employer has never described Dinkov’s behaviour as aggressive.” Well, what then mean the statements of my employer, given in written to the working doctor (most likely by my supervisor Tatu Kaskela).

-       According to his supervisor Dinkov’s behaviour during the last year was volatile; sometimes he seemed happy, sometimes aggressive, because of that his colleagues were afraid of him (see attachment 4.4_1.pdf the fifth paragraph). Or even a worse statement – from the notes of the psychiatry Seppo Waltimo we read (see Waltimo3.pdf): “I have received the following information about Rostislav Dinkov, source Rostislav’s working doctor and Rostislav’s supervisor. At least 3 people at work have described Rostislav’s behaviour as somehow dangerous. For example in their face to face meetings Rostislav has been obviously irritated and in his eyes they saw a “threat” that he will hit them. One of Rostislav’s colleagues has said that he/she does not dare to come early to work because of fear from Rostislav”. Because of those false statements of my employer, that it now rejects, psychiatry Waltimo has requested a M1 medical check for psychiatric hospitalization, without giving any information about it to me. About the matter I request a proper Police Investigation.

I also want to bring to your attention, that because of the harassment, severe defamation and discrimination done by my employer in May 2014 my relatives took me to Bulgaria in very poor health condition (see the 8 notary certified documents, brought from Bulgaria) . The latter is fact that stressed my old father very much, deteriorating his health too. Later on, in October 2014, he was diagnosed with cancer, that has spread beyond cure. As of today 18.5.2015 he weighs about 50 kilos (tall 184 cm) and is completely incapable to eat by his mouth – the cancer is at the end of his esophagus (down throat).

I appeal for a proper Police investigation, clearing the discriminatory events that lead to termination of my working contract, as well as my employer’s statements about my health and behaviour. In my best believe in the given by my employer statements one can clearly see big controversies and flows. Hence I consider the actions of my employer as harassment and severe defamation. I also believe that my employer intentionally exploited the working doctors and their knowledge of the severe car crash I was involved in 2009.                            

Kind regards           

Rostislav Georgiev Dinkov

Helsinki 26.11.2014

Read 1926 times
Login to post comments