Several associations representing the Justice Administration (LAJ) lawyers have issued a letter amid ongoing protests. Among their demands are the return of funds held during the two-month strike and, notably, an average gross salary increase of around 450 euros per month. This message has sparked intense responses and efforts to keep all unions in the justice sector united under a common front.
As the strike coalition gathers representatives from internship programs, CSIF, CCOO, and UGT, the inter-union group published two separate statements on their platforms. They criticized the letter’s tone as out of step with professional standards and described it as lacking maturity, suggesting it projected arrogance and envy instead of pride and constructive dialogue. They argued that the communication should have reflected a sense of professional pride rather than conflict.
In a separate statement, the strike committee raised concerns about the Minister’s stance, arguing that public service personnel deserve more serious attention. They claimed the minister showed limited interest in the public service and a preoccupation with comparing the LAJ with other groups, without acknowledging the realities of modern labor relations.
Former clerks noted that their strikes had helped set the stage for further wage discussions across judicial groups, adding that gains should be maintained and not tied to protests alone. They warned of potential ongoing salary gaps if efforts to resolve compensation disparities are delayed or diluted, and cautioned that other professionals in the justice system could experience slower progress if morale remains unsettled.
InterSindikal contends that the letter’s real aim might be to seek direct government concessions. They insist that LAJ is not superior to other civil servants in the same system and stress that informal interactions with judges should not be mistaken for equal standing. Questions about oversight and control of the LAJ program are raised, prompting debate about consistency in governance across the department.
Not all of them
The strike committee asserts that the communiqué does not represent the entire LAJ or the top judicial body. They describe the letter as revealing a deeper issue that damages the professional reputation of public servants within the judiciary and in society at large.
Critics argue that the stance taken could undermine public confidence by delaying cases without a solid legal basis. They suggest the rhetoric risks creating unnecessary friction among staff in the judicial authorities, and pressures others not to contribute to ongoing work on case drafts.
According to the four unions, the described working style disqualifies those involved from leading initiatives in the new judicial office. They emphasize that it is essential to avoid behaviors that provoke contempt, envy, or arrogance among colleagues.
The letter also questions ongoing wage balance. It proposes that any general increase or adjustments to the general complement of the position or any other pay concept, extended to all staff or to judges and prosecutors, should include LAJ in any revised package. This point underscores the push for more uniform recognition across the department.
The darker side
From the strike committee’s viewpoint, the actions of the three groups of forensic lawyers reveal a more contentious side. They claim these groups are asking the government not to concede to the claims of other employees within the justice system, including judges and prosecutors, regardless of how those groups may perceive the situation.
The committee reminds readers that union activity within the Sectoral Council has historically benefited from the broader labor movement, even when LAJ representatives did not participate in certain mobilizations or strikes. It highlights a pattern of solidarity that transcends individual participation.
It is argued that the LAJ associations, whether official or not, sometimes hinder the rights of other staff and resist internal promotion processes. Critics claim some groups act more along class lines than in concert with the broader needs of the Ministry of Justice, relying on past support from the ministry to justify their positions.
Interindependents emphasize that the LAJ is not the same as the judiciary. They point out that simply sharing a coffee with a judge does not grant equivalence in status, and they question the consistency of work hours controls if LAJ members are treated differently from other civil servants.
Some critics recall striking scenes and dramatic images from previous assemblies, imagining idealized celebrations that align with certain political narratives. They stress the importance of staying grounded in professional responsibilities rather than theatrics that might distract from core duties.
The strike committee maintains that the statements from the LAJ, written with a certain tone of arrogance, may fail to represent the broader body of lawyers within the Ministry of Justice. They argue that the message risks feeding contempt and envy toward both class-based officials and other members of the judiciary.
In closing, the committee insists that while the LAJ seeks to advance civil service concerns, it must avoid suggesting that its members have unique control over working hours or that they stand above others in the justice system. The emphasis remains on pursuing fair treatment for all workers within the ministry, without undermining the integrity or cooperative spirit essential to the administration of justice.