By Following the article titled “Otašević: Camović Veličković Is Trying to Cover Up Trade Union Fraud with False Claims”, published on the www.gradski.me portal on 7 October 2026, the President of the Trade Union of Media of Montenegro (TUMM), Marijana Camović Veličković, issued the following response.
Your personal obsession with and animosity towards our colleague Milan Nikčević, President of the representative Trade Union Organization of Gradska RTV Podgorica, have gone beyond all reasonable limits. In yet another attempt to misuse the Gradska TV portal to convince us that you lawfully conducted the procedure for establishing the representativeness of the other (your) trade union and issued lawful decisions in that process, you offer no legal arguments to support the legality of your actions. Instead, you focus on attacking our colleague Nikčević personally and professionally, repeatedly bringing up a fabricated disciplinary proceeding (while conveniently failing to mention that the Basic Court has ruled in Nikčević’s favour twice).
Everything you are trying to blame on Nikčević, who has absolutely no responsibility for maintaining the archives of the local public broadcaster you manage, is in fact your own responsibility and does not absolve you of your lack of knowledge of the relevant procedures or your unlawful actions.
However, since you have already chosen to justify your unlawful actions by alleging that Nikčević, as the first among equals in what was until recently the only trade union at the local public broadcaster, failed to fulfil his obligations, let us present several facts:
1. The only truth in your public statement of 7 October 2026 is that you repeatedly contacted the President of the Gradska RTV Trade Union Organization, requesting proof of its representativeness, thereby diverting attention from the main issue: negotiations on the Collective Agreement at Gradska RTV.
2. You were nevertheless duly provided with proof of representativeness, which you should have already possessed without having to contact the Trade Union Organization (the Decision Establishing Representativeness at Employer Level and the Decision on Registration in the Register of Representative Trade Union Organizations).
3. Dissatisfied with the response, you attempted to pressure this representative Trade Union Organization into providing documents that are held by the local public broadcaster itself, which bears sole responsibility for properly archiving such documentation.
4. Although the President of the Trade Union Organization duly responded to your requests, you remained dissatisfied and, without any legal basis and apparently without legal support, continued to act aimlessly, sending requests to the trade union that made it impossible to determine whether you were initiating a procedure to establish the representativeness of an organization that was already representative or exercising your legal right to initiate a review of its previously established representativeness.
Perhaps the following letter best illustrates the confusion and lack of understanding we are referring to. It clearly demonstrates that you were unsure whether you wanted to establish representativeness (which you have no authority to do) or review it (which you are authorized to initiate).
Therefore, it is not true that you contacted our colleagues on 31 March to examine their representativeness. At that time, the matter concerned the Collective Agreement and an increase in salary coefficients for all employees, an issue you still refuse to discuss.
5. Although the President of the Trade Union Organization pointed out the irregularities in your letter, he nevertheless appointed two representatives in an effort to accommodate your poorly formulated request.
6. Despite all of the above, you chose to establish a Commission unlawfully and conduct the procedure without the participation of what was then the employer’s only representative trade union.
The unlawfully constituted Commission produced an unlawful Proposal, on the basis of which you issued and signed an unlawful Decision Establishing Representativeness.
You issued this decision on 8 May 2026, concealing it from the legitimate representative trade union, while simultaneously corresponding with that same union about its representativeness, which you were attempting to challenge. This was 12 days before you raised the issue of reviewing or establishing the representativeness of the trade union represented by Nikčević.
7. Your lack of understanding of the matter is further demonstrated by your claim that the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Dialogue does not have in its archives the documentation relating to the appointment of the Commission that established the representativeness of the Gradska RTV Trade Union Organization.
The Ministry is under no obligation to possess such a document, since the secondary legislation regulating the registration of representative trade unions does not require it as part of the documentation necessary for registration.
However, had you been familiar with the provisions of the relevant secondary legislation, or had you carefully read and understood the Law on Trade Union Representativeness, you would have advised your trade union to register in the Register of Representative Trade Union Organizations.
8. You claim that “the Gradska RTV Podgorica Trade Union is not representative”. We therefore once again suggest that you consider, perhaps with the assistance of the lawyers you pay in addition to the employees of your Legal Department, whether you are entitled to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide whether a trade union is representative or not.
You should also present them with the evidence and procedures on which you based such a position.
9. By continuing to threaten our colleague Nikčević, including with statements such as that he “will have to answer certain questions before the competent authorities”, you are merely strengthening the body of evidence of anti-union discrimination.
Furthermore, by bringing up members of his immediate family, who have absolutely nothing to do with his work obligations or professional responsibility, you are only confirming not merely your discriminatory treatment, but also your personal animosity towards Nikčević and your intention to retaliate against him because of his trade union activities and family ties.
So much for the alleged fraud you mentioned. Let those interested in this matter judge the facts for themselves.
Yours sincerely,
Marijana Camović Veličković President of TUMM
