«LTM, a company in the port of Livorno that manages a terminal inside the Galvani Gate, intends to close its doors and create a new company that deals with port operations to which to transfer all its current 51 employees between operational and administrative". They have announced Filt-Cgil, Fit-Cisl and Uiltrasporti, denouncing that "everything This is unacceptable and for this reason - the unions - the workers have opened a state of agitation".

Yesterday Giuseppe Gucciardo (Filt-Cgil), Dino Keszei (Fit-Cisl) and Gianluca Vianello (Uiltrasporti) specified that "the The news was communicated in recent hours by the top management company delegates. The terminal operator LTM, a "Article 18" of the Ports Act 84/1994 - explained the representatives of the unions - would be willing to create a sort of "newco" specialized in operations a "Ports Act", i.e. an "Article 16" of the Ports Act, to plug the shortages of trafficking that have emerged in recent years. According to LTM, this move would safeguard the future of workers: nothing could be more wrong, on the contrary, the opposite. If the LTM project materializes - they warned Gucciardo, Keszei and Vianello - the 51 employees would be transferred in a new company with all the negative that it would achieve in terms of perspective, stability and economic recognition".

"The LTM project, which as a result of this would become an "empty box" - continued the trade unionists - would not only jeopardise the future of trade unions workers. The negative repercussions of this unfortunate idea would also break down the already precarious balances of the whole Livorno port system. In fact, the port of Livorno already boasts a large number of Article 16 undertakings and the entry of of a new subject would only intensify the internal competition and thus increase competition based on on labour costs. The negative consequences would also be generated ALP ('Article 17') and the Intempo, subjects who provide labour to the port companies in the event of traffic peaks".

"The LTM project - concluded Gucciardo, Keszei and Vianello - is also unacceptable because the intention would be to have the new company operate on the quay to the Deep Bottom used by Porto2000 (a company of which LTM itself holds a shareholding), quay that could not be used for this purpose because the same Porto2000 does not have the concessions to carry out the activity terminal operator in accordance with the Ports Act 84/1994. Ask therefore the Port Authority to act as guarantor of the social balances in port by blocking the proliferation of new economic subjects".