STÁTNÍ TAJEMNÍK U ŘÍŠSKÉHO PROTEKTORA V ČECHÁCH A NA MORAVĚ, PRAHA, inv. 2225, sig. 109-11/26 Page 3 · 3 of 9
STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 2225, sig. 109-11-26
English Translation
2 The Head of Division v / 2 Prague, aox/1. 8. 1943 V / 2 a - 5409 AALCOPE OL beremntte S de: 8 va bnw nettlrgealus etlerdekoatfo dl anlq a9y Mr .u etetlodas nirevdl P Ministerial Councillor Dr. G i e s CE OTeAN im H a u se B0 AMECCUNLY nt caer lnut .eS ald.C mov ole ow nkfrel donn aetmae ela ow etiedrn tottacs bareastallred Subject: Work operation; here: Maria K u b e s c h , Bud- weis, Schillerstrasse No. 26. W8C .eml.sb Processi Your order of 14.7.1943, St.S.XI B-71a/43. KOSL The first submission of the applicant dated April 2, 1943 was received here in the course of the business on May 6, 1943 and was forwarded to the employment office of Budweis on May 8, 1943 for an opinion. In addition, an entry of the same content ran as an appeal against the decision of the employment department concerning consent to the solution of the work relationship. As regards the first submission, Budweis' employment office referred to an opinion on the appeal. However, by mistake, the case-handler ordered the case to be dealt with in the file without giving any reply which could essentially have been taken from the appeal decision. The re-examination of the matter showed that Mrs K u b e s c h had to be re-established at the tram service, since the employment office had not agreed to the solution of the employment relationship. At a later request, the consent of the working office of Budweis was granted, namely on the basis of the following statement by the district chief - Reichsauftragsverwaltung - in Budwies: "Due to the practice of surveys, I established that the above-mentioned people probably only professed material advantages because of Germanism and otherwise did not campaign in any way for Germanism. She conducts a very loose lifestyle, is supposed to be ill and is also unreliable in every respect and therefore cannot be considered as a conductor." Mrs K u b e s c h, in her appeal, opposes this last decision of the employment office of Budweis essentially only because she considers her duties X1 A-71-a/43