Concertation phase

Home
Working conditions
Outside Brussels
Agencies
Europ. Institutions
About U4U
Members

 

Phase de concertation

Up Initial phase First draft regulation Our proposals Concertation phase Negotiat. breakdown Com proposal PE : 1ère lecture Conseil : 1ère lecture First reading (Cont'd) 1ère lecture formelle DGE - GIP Legal actions
Sur cette page
On this page

Introduction

Position commune sur le volet "Carrières"

NEASC position paper on the modifications of the Staff Regulations

Letter from European Parliament's Disability Support Group

La Commission a ouvert le processus de concertation sur sa proposition de règlement en vue de la réforme du Statut. Le texte ainsi soumis aux organisations syndicales est particulièrement touffu et difficile à lire. C'est pourquoi nous vous présentons une synthèse de ce texte.

La concertation se limite au statut et ne couvre pas les aspects budgétaires, dont la mesure de réduction des effectifs de 5%. La Commission a cependant indiqué que cette mesure pourrait être soumise au processus de dialogue social.

La Commission a aussi accepté de mettre sur la table, lors de la concertation, les contre-propositions présentées par les syndicats.

Les syndicats se sont organisés pour participer à cette concertation de façon unitaire, y compris sur le plan interinstitutionnel. Des réunions de préparation sont d'ores et déjà planifiées. Afin de pouvoir parler d'une seule voix, des intervenants spécialistes de chaque domaine, choisis par tous, seront chargés de présenter la position commune.

Cependant, la concertation n'est pas seulement un processus bureaucratique qui serait une affaire d'experts. Il est extrêmement important que le personnel soit informé en permanence de l'évolution de la situation. Car en effet certains aspects de la proposition de la Commission sont très dommageables pour le personnel. Si la Commission s'y arc-boutait, il faudrait alors que le personnel lui-même devienne un acteur du processus pour défendre ses conditions de travail.

Rappelons que la fonction publique européenne n'est en rien une cause de la crise, que même si le projet de règlement passait tel quel, il ne constituerait en aucune manière un élément de solution à cette crise. En réalité, les États se saisissent de ce prétexte pour continuer d'affaiblir la fonction publique, et à travers elle, la construction européenne. Ce qui est un fameux paradoxe car s'il y a une leçon à tirer de cette crise, c'est qu'il faut plus d'Europe, en particulier plus de gouvernance économique au niveau de l'Europe.

En défendant notre statut, nous ne défendons pas seulement nos intérêts propres. Nous voulons maintenir et développer au service des peuples européens une fonction publique indépendante et compétente, qui puisse assumer les nouvelles missions qu'il faudra bien que les États membres confient à l'UE s'ils veulent trouver une solution pérenne aux défis actuels.

Voir notre circulaire d'information sur le déroulement de cette phase

Position commune de l'ensemble des OSP de toutes les institutions concernant le volet "Carrières"

Cette position commune constitue la réponse des OSP sur le volet "carrière" de la Réforme, se fonde sur la volonté de défendre l'unité de la fonction publique européenne, est conçue dans un souci d'équilibre susceptible de rencontrer les exigences des Institutions en excluant les hypothèses irréalistes ou de type démagogique.

Le point de départ est la réaffirmation de l'appartenance à part entière de la carrière de secrétaire/commis au corps des fonctionnaires européens et donc l'opposition ferme des OSP à la proposition de Réforme qui vise à termes la contractualisation de 7500 postes de fonctionnaires.

De plus, les OSP refusent la proposition visant à introduire le blocage AST 10-11 en remplaçant l'avancement de carrière par promotion par la nomination sur poste ainsi que la modification de l'annexe 1B y afférant.

Voici les points essentiels de la proposition alternative des OSP sur lesquels elles demandent de pouvoir avoir une véritable négociation :

A) Instauration d'une carrière AST1-AST 7 (Secrétariat/Commis) et AST3/11 pour tous les autres " Assistants".

1) Les Secrétaires/Commis pourront basculer dans le parcours au delà d'AST 7 au travers d'une procédure paritaire visant à constater un changement de fonctions. La perméabilité des parcours de carrières doit être efficiente et non discriminatoire

2) Accès des AC aux Concours internes sur titres et épreuves en tant que mesure de valorisation du personnel en place pour les AC ayant minimum 3 ans d'ancienneté (20% maximum).

A cet égard, les OSP confirment leur attachement au respect de plus hauts standards de qualité et de transparence d'application pour tout recrutement au sein de la fonction publique.

3) Mesures transitoires :

a) Pour les fonctionnaires AST recrutés après Mai 2004 : parcours de carrière AST 1/11 qui inclura les ex B, les attestés et tous les recrutés AST après cette date

b) Pour les fonctionnaires AST Recrutés avant Mai 2004 : AST1/5 pour ex D et AST1/7 pour ex C

c) Engagement ferme des Institutions de continuer un système d'attestation au-delà de 2011 et à appliquer dans toute son extension.

B) Amélioration de la situation des agents contractuels

1) AC 3ter : CDD de 6 ans max.

2) Révision de la structure de carrière et de la grille salariale des AC pour prévoir de vraies perspectives de carrière pour les AC 3bis, avec un nombre de grades plus important, essentiellement pour les GF I et GF II. Les niveaux de salaire doivent être revalorisés compte tenu des responsabilités réellement exercées par les AC et ne jamais se situer en-dessous des minimaux nationaux. Les taux de reclassement doivent être garantis.

3) Amélioration des conditions de travail des AC :

- Mobilité interne et interinstitutionnelle
- Suppression de la limite de 10 mois pour le préavis
- Pas de licenciement en raison d'un congé de maladie
- Prolongation possible du contrat pendant un congé de maternité ou en cas de maladie grave
- suppression des stages en cas de changement de groupe de fonctions.

4) Mesures transitoires

Il convient de prévoir les mesures permettant aux AC 3ter dont le contrat vient à échéance avant 2013, de rester en place pour profiter du prolongement de la durée maximale des contrats et participer aux concours internes organisés.

 

Network of Executive Agency Staff Committees (NEASC) position paper on the modifications of the Staff Regulations

Draft 26/08/2011

This paper aims to contribute to the reflection on how to modernise the EU civil service in the framework of the proposed amendments to the Staff Regulations. As stated in the Commission's proposal of 29 June 2011, "the European Union should be equipped with a high-quality European public administration, so as to enable it to perform its tasks to the highest possible standard".  

The Network of Executive Agency Staff Committees (NEASC) welcomes and supports the discussion paper of the Assembly of Agency Staff Committees (AASC) on the proposed amendments to the Staff Regulations and conditions of employment of other agents (SR/CEOS).  

This position paper is not a reply to the Commission proposal, but sets out the NEASC vision on necessary modifications of the staff regulations.

The concept of employment by the European Union is not limited to the institutions of the European Union itself (i.e. notably the Commission, the Parliament and the Council), but includes also the staff of the Agencies, Executive Agencies and Joint Undertakings. All employees of the European Union should benefit from equal conditions regardless whether they work for the Union itself or whether they work for a body established by the Union[1].

The NEASC proposes four concrete measures to improve the attractiveness of the EU civil service within the budget constraints.

Executive agencies (EA) mainly employ staff in the categories of contract agents (CA) and temporary agents (TA). Therefore this paper focuses on the working conditions of these categories of staff.

1. Indefinite contracts for agents performing permanent tasks

Current situation

Executive Agencies (EA) currently employ mainly TA and CA. By the current definition of these categories, TA and CA do not benefit from the same rules than Officials, although they perform mostly the same permanent tasks. 

The same tasks are performed by different categories of personnel, with different working conditions (grade, career, salaries …):

AD tasks performed  by:

 

A official before 1.5.2004

AD official after 1.5.2004

Contract agent 3a (function group IV)

Contract agent 3b (function group IV)

Temporary Agent  (Cabinet, special cases …)

Temporary Agent  seconded officials of the  Commission (Agencies, …)

Temporary Agent  (Agencies)

AST tasks performed by:

 

B/C/D official before 1.5.2004

AST3 competition after 1.5.2004

Attestation or internal competition after 1.5.2004

Recruited on an AST1 competition after 1.5.2004

Contract agent 3a (function groups I/ II/ III)

Contract agent 3b (function groups I/ II/ III)

Temporary Agent  (Cabinet, special cases …)

Temporary Agent  seconded officials of the  Commission (Agencies, …)

Temporary Agent  (Agencies)

Limited duration contracts are offered to:

bulletTemporary agents in the Commission
bulletTemporary agents in the Agencies
bulletContract agents function groups II/ III and IV in the Agencies
bulletContract agents function groups II/ III and IV in the Commission

 Indefinite contracts are offered to:

bulletTemporary agents in the Commission
bulletTemporary agents in Agencies
bulletContract agents (function group I) in the Commission
bulletContract agents (all function groups) only limited to some Offices and Delegations
bulletContract agents (all function groups) in Agencies

Remarks / Conditions / Constraints:

o   Job holders receive such contracts only after two contracts of definite period. This practice creates unnecessary precariousness.

o   Before renewal of a contract for an indefinite period, the contract agent function group IV have to demonstrate the ability to work in a third language among those referred to in Article 314 of the EC Treaty[2].

o   In Executive Agencies:

Indefinite contract but limited to the lifetime of the Executive Agency.
Executive Agencies have a limited lifetime and are in charge of programs assigned by their parent DGs.[3] Continuity of Executive Agencies depends on the strategic choices by the legislators and the Commission on the execution of framework programmes assigned to them by agreement of the Council/Parliament.

 

The Commission's proposals of 29 June 2011:

bullet To extend the maximum duration of contracts from three to five years for CA function groups III and IV in the Commission

For the NEASC this is not sufficient to address the core problems. Contracts limited to 5 years will still lead to high staff turnover, recurrent loss of expertise, limited career perspectives, frustration and lack of motivation. The only real solution is to offer contracts of indefinite period to CA of all function groups carrying out permanent tasks.

bulletTo extend the possibility of obtaining contracts of indefinite period to CA of function group II

For the NEASC this is not sufficient as it excludes function groups III and IV. Moreover this situation will create an additional difference in the groups performing the same tasks and adds an additional separation in the category of contract agent."[4]

bulletNo more  recruitment of  AST officials for secretarial and clerical task

For the NEASC this his a wrong approach given that the CA salaries and career perspectives are too low and limited to recruit nationals of Member States on the broadest possible geographical basis. The NEASC asks DG HR of the Commission to update the study on the salaries of EU staff in comparison with staff of International Organisations carried out in 2000 in order to include also the category CA. The NEASC is convinced that the findings of such a study would clearly demonstrate that CA are underpaid compared to equivalent staff in International Organisations.

bulletTo establish a new category of TA for Agencies (Article 2f)

For the NEASC this new paragraph automatically excludes mobility between TAs 2(f) employed in Agencies and TAs 2(a) employed in the Institutions as well as maintaining rights and seniority acquired so far. The difference as concerns CAs' right to mobility (inter-institutional and inter-Agency) persists. A clarification and confirmation with regard to the inclusion/admissibility of TAs engaged under 2(f) would be useful in case of inter-institutional internal competitions.

The proposals of the NEASC:

The NEASC requests that all EU Institutions and bodies including the Executive Agencies respect the principles of Labour law in the European Union. This makes a fundamental difference between jobs to execute permanent tasks and those to carry out non permanent tasks. Employers and employees representatives at European level have concluded a framework agreement on fixed-term work in 1999 which led to Council directive 1999/70/EC[5]. Contracts of an indefinite duration constitute "the general form of employment relationship between employers and workers characterised by stable employment, whereas fixed-term employment contracts respond only in certain circumstances to the needs of both employers and workers"[6]. The EU Court has also pointed out, in that regard, that the benefit of stable employment constitutes a major element in the protection of workers[7]. The current use of contracts of definite period for CA by the European Commission has been heavily criticised by labour law experts[8] and recently reviewed by the Court of First Instance[9].

This means in practice that:

  1. A contract of indefinite period is offered to CA and TA carrying out permanent tasks from the beginning.

  2. A contract of definite period is offered only when the non-permanent nature of tasks is duly justified.

  3. The distinction between CA 'type 3a and 3b' should be abolished. A unique type of contract agent should be defined for all EU Institutions, including the Executive Agencies.

  4. The purpose of the creation of a new sub-category for TA (introduction of new Article 2f) needs clarification. There should be no discrimination against TAs employed by Agencies.

 The same rights and obligations should apply to all CA and TA. The only difference would be the contract duration which would depend on the permanent character of the post independently of the EU Institution or Agency recruiting the staff member. This would be also an important facilitator for job mobility of agents between the EU Institutions including the Executive Agencies.

2. Internal competitions for CA and TA

In the current situation career perspectives and promotion possibilities of CA and TA are very limited. CA and TA in EA are recruited following an EPSO / DG HR approved recruitment procedure in order to obtain a contract of indefinite period.

TA in EA having broadly the same working conditions as permanent officials can in principle not occupy senior management posts because these are reserved for seconded Commission officials. This creates a very unsatisfactory situation in terms of promotion possibilities for TA.

The proposal of NEASC is to create genuine career paths by organising regular internal competitions for TA and CA enabling them to become officials and offering career perspectives (at the appropriate AD/AST level) The TA of EA should also be allowed to participate in internal competitions for management posts within and outside the EA.

3. Fostering job mobility between the EU Institutions and bodies, including the Executive Agencies 

Currently, administrative barriers exist to job mobility for CA and TA between different Executive Agencies. The Directors of EA are discussing an agreement on job mobility between EA based on similar principles as the interagency job market for regulatory agencies (IAJM).

The NEASC is in favour of an inter-executive agency job market. The NEASC believes that it is also important to create job mobility between the EA and (parent) DG of the European Commission for three reasons:

1)      Several staff members of EA have specialised profiles being more relevant for the parent DG than for other EA.

2)      DGs could use the expertise of staff members of Executive Agencies.

3)      The links as well as the exchange of experience and knowledge between the (parent) DG and the EA would be considerably strengthened by job mobility between EA and the Commission.

Job mobility between EA and the Commission as well as with other EU Institutions could easily be created as the staff regulations equally apply to both TA and CA.

4. Recognition of Staff of Executives Agencies

Although considered "agencies" in the Staff Regulations, the situation of staff in Executive Agencies is different from the one in Regulatory Agencies. Unlike these, Staff of Executive Agencies:

bullet

Execute tasks that previously have been performed by the staff of the Commission, e.g. execution of Framework Programmes

bullet

Has been recruited in line with EPSO conform recruitment procedures

bullet

Has been appointed by a Director who is seconded official from the Commission

bullet

Even with contracts of indefinite duration, their employment depends on the continuation of the EA.

bullet

Staff of EA is not represented in the social dialogue on the Staff Regulations.

Executive Agencies implement tasks which are, in principle, permanent tasks. For these reasons, the NEASC proposes the following for staff from Executive Agencies:

bullet Staff of EA should be represented in the social dialogue
bullet Job security for the staff should be ensured by transfer of staff within the Commission in case of closure of one EA
bulletA review of the grid scale (pay, grading as CA 3b)[10] should be done.

 Conclusion

The NEASC proposal is to align the conditions of employment of CA/TA staff to the EU labour law regarding the duration of employment contracts for permanent tasks. EU Institutions including the Executive Agencies should act in respect of the EU Directive on fixed term contracts and the fundamentals of EU labour rights as do the Member States. Initial contracts of an indefinite period for CA and TA would be beneficial to staff and will generate major advantages: ensure security of employment, improve career perspectives, keep valuable expertise and knowledge without generating any additional costs for the EU budget. Additionally hidden costs due to high staff turnover would be considerably reduced.

Fostering of job mobility and developing career perspectives of the staff of EA is part of the challenges that EU Institutions and bodies, including the Executive Agencies are facing and essential for the NEASC.

The conditions of employment of CA should not be used to the detriment of permanent officials, in particular the AST grades. The NEASC believes that the independence of the EU civil service can only be guaranteed as long as it is attractive for persons originating from all Member States, including permanent official posts also for secretarial and clerical tasks.

There should not be a trade off between the measures proposed for CA/TA and those for officials.

The recognition of EA staff is necessary to take account of the constantly growing number of staff in EA and their increasing importance within the European public administration.

[1]       Cf.  European Court of Justice, 13.5.1982, A. Alaimo./. Commission, C-16/81, 2002, 1559.

[2] http://intracomm.cec.eu-admin.net/statut/_en/tit229.htm and Commission Decision of 18-VI-2008 on general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations

[3] Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes, OJ L 11 of  16.1.2003, p. 1

[4] NEASC observes different messages in the proposal of 29.06.2011 and on the http://myintracomm.ec.testa.eu/net/Reform/En/Pages/Topic6.aspx  which refers to secretaries with unlimited contracts  only

[6] Case F- 88/08 Vandeuren v ETF & F-1/05 paragraph 57, Landgren v European Training Foundation (ETF) paragraph 66

[7] Case C144/04 Mangold [2005] ECR I - 9981, paragraph 64 & Case C-212/04 Adeneler and Others [2006] ECR -6057, paragraph 62

[8] Cf. Blanpain, R. Le statut des agents contractuels européens, published on http://www.collectifdescontractuels.eu/documents/ca-cdd.pdf

[9]  Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 16.12.2010. T-143/09  N. Petrilli ./. Commission.

[10]     See the classification of CA 3a and 3b according to Articles 7 and 10 of the Implementing Rules http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2004/ia04049_fr.html#Article%207.
For a quick comparison between the CA 3a and CA 3b salary grids and impact on grading, see also the Article in SFE-Panoptique; No. 103, p. 11,
http://www.conf-sfe.org/?pid=homepan.

Letter from European Parliament's Disability Support Group

Dear trade union colleagues,

On behalf of the European Parliament's Disability Support Group, I have pleasure in sending you our proposals in connection with the forthcoming revision of the Staff Regulations. The 3 documents attached to this message comprise a brief "news release" summarising the reasons for our proposals, a summary of the main amendments, and finally the full text of our proposed amendments.

We very much hope that you will be able to give your full backing to these proposals which are inspired largely by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which the European Union is a contracting party, the acceptance of the social model of disability and the need for the EU institutions as employers to act as a role model.

We are obviously at your disposal for any further information or clarification you might require.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Scott

 

[Top]


Problems regarding this web site ? webmaster@u4unity.eu       Last modified: 16 February 2016.
      Search       Sitemap

Contact us - Receive our press - Join us - Articles of association - Archives - Facebook