Avec la participation de

No Xy Lo   n°34 - 16 june 2014

Contents

Editorial: Faced with the dangers which rising Euroscepticism and nationalist fallback represent for the people of Europe, let’s give Europe a chance.

The European elections have sent Brussels a new Parliament, in which more than one member in seven is an extreme Eurosceptic.

In the light of this wonderful result, the Heads of State have made it quite clear that electors will have virtually no influence over the choice of the President of the European Commission. By doing this, they risk seriously offending the citizens and thus contributing to the next surge of extremist thinking.

These are the same Heads of State who have imposed policies leading to the destruction of the social fabric through their uncontrolled austerity policies in a number of crisis-stricken European states. They are the same people who grudgingly haggled over budgetary resources so that they could march home having won a victory over their neighbour countries. And it was they who failed to strengthen the EU institutions so that they could be undermined by inter-governmental cabals. Yes, they are the parties who wanted to “reform Brussels”, singing the praises of à la carte governmental cooperation initiatives, while shooting those who worked to set them up down in flames (such as the European patent or banking monitoring).

Which is why the EU, in other words, the actual people of Europe, is unlikely to change its attitude unless the national governments change their policies to promote a kind of European integration which really serves the people.

Change will not fall from the heavens. Through the five years of this Parliament, and starting now, action will be needed from those who believe that the nations of European will only matter economically and politically and the social model will only survive if they launch political campaigns to explain and persuade.

This is a building in which no brick can be left out. This is why we are now supporting a citizen initiative under the heading of a New Deal for Europe. Its merit is that it addresses two subjects which are crucial for the future:

- It proposes an investment plan at European level so that the EU can realistically initiate a sustainable recovery aimed at boosting employment;

- It proposes that this be achieved through a budget financed by its own resources, with a view to putting an end to the organised impotence of an EU which is being financially strangled by national selfishness.

European officials must sign this citizen initiative. This is the first gesture we can make for Europe. This will be the first positive citizen-level response in the relaunch of a European construction project which will imbue all the victims of the economic crisis with a little hope, at the same time strengthening the European Public Service.

The presidency of the Commission should be entrusted to candidates appointed by EP groups, capable of re-energising the process based on a majority which will give it legitimacy

The EP should not allow Member States to offer the presidency of the Commission to a candidate who has emerged from backroom bargaining.

The Heads of State and Government must take the vote expressed by the citizens of Europe on May 22–25 into account, and indeed respect it: the future president of the European Commission must be the candidate from the party which won the elections, or at least capable of creating a majority around themself.

This is the meaning of European democracy which everybody can agree to aspire to. The European parties have indeed presented their candidates to the 500 million citizens involved in electing the head of the European Commission, and the EP must therefore stay on course.

The Heads of State and Government cannot now strive to confiscate this vote or replace this democratic process with machinations driven by the lowest European bidder. In other words, the spirit of the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon which introduced a more democratic dimension cannot be set aside: this being the case, we demand that the European executive be the outcome of a process which confers legitimacy and responsibility upon it.

We, the officials and staff of the European institutions, are European citizens. We are not afraid of democracy and transparency; on the contrary, we claim it as our right.

We are for a strong and legitimate Commission, and a President who is equally strong and legitimate.

Relocations to DG AGRI: taking the personnel into consideration

The recent negotiations regarding the EU budget have not only succeeded in cutting Commission staff costs, they have also shrunk its office space. Between now and 2023, the office pool is to be reduced by 8%; in other words, rather more than the number of positions eliminated (5%).

The DG AGRI has not been spared, but its timetable is quite demanding: it is required to give up the space which the OIB, responsible for calculating, recovering and organising space, is demanding by the end of 2015!

Why the rush? Because quite independently of the planned reduction, the OIB has failed to lease the buildings needed to house the colleagues occupying offices with leases terminating in 2014, which need to be accommodated, in time. This is a mistake which will have to be paid for in part by the AGRI staff.

As a basis for its space-saving calculations, the OIB decided to assume that the minimum number of square metres laid down in the Accommodation Conditions Manual [manuel des conditions d'hébergement – MCH] would also be the maximum number of square metres to which anyone had a right. By applying the same rule to all the Commission buildings in Brussels, the following unjust situation has arisen: 1m² of a new building, one where the ergonomics have been established to meet modern working requirements, is not the same as a m² in an older building with an obsolete structure, like that of the DG AGRI. You only have to take a stroll through the various EC buildings to see that not everybody is in the same boat, even if they do have the same number of square metres.

At a time when reform has squeezed everything – salaries, careers, rights – this haste to cram us into spaces which are not only smaller, but uncomfortable, and sometimes even unhealthy, is being taken very badly by the DG AGRI staff.

U4U AGRI has launched a petition on behalf of the AGRI personnel to be forwarded to the OIB and DG HR.

We are calling for the implementation of measures to alleviate the pressure which the extension of working hours in cramped spaces will inevitably be felt by all involved.

- We reject the idea that the minimum space set down in the MCH should become the maximum applicable.
- We reject the plan for scheduled relocations to take place regardless of the specific and exceptional DG AGRI approval timetable, particularly as regards the new 2014–2020 programmes, an exercise in which practically ALL the DG is involved.
- We demand that the OIB operate with moderation, in keeping with the characteristics of each building and the established timetable (2023!).
- We accept the suggestion that all colleagues who wish to should be allowed to work from home to the extent that this is compatible with the activities of the unit.
- In keeping with the outcomes of the flexitime negotiations, we should establish individual core times for the colleagues who request them.

Everything OK at the OIB? Maybe not...

The OIB at CSM1 [Cours Saint Michel 1] consists of technical teams responsible, when work needs to take place in the buildings, for taking the mass transportation facilities to each relocation, given their distance from the heart of the European quarter.

People arriving on foot at the OIB at CSM1 have to enter via the access to the external car park and cross the car park with all the hazards that implies.

The OIB is an office which has had an acting CEO since September 2012. Will the position be “blocked” for a Cabinet member?

The OIB devotes itself to nit-picking checks on timetables and restrictions on flexitime-using staff.

The OIB consists of cross-category cases, career problems, and those forgotten by the 2004 reform.

AD 13 and AD 14 promotions: the Cabinets’ best practices should now be applied to the services, in the framework of clear and transparent rules

As you undoubtedly will have read, the colleagues attached to the cabinets have been allocated, as part of their secondment in the interest of the service, to the equivalent of heads of unit, for the purposes of promotion, on the basis of the College decision which applies as of January 1 2014, and which amends Decision SEC (2010) 104, which laid down the rules on the composition of the Cabinets of Commissioners and of the Spokesperson.

U4U holds that it is not unlawful for the Colleagues attached to the Cabinets to be able to enjoy promotion in these grades, in the light of the duties performed by them. It is to be regretted that a similar step has not been taken on behalf of the colleagues who work in the services.

What is now needed is for the Commission to negotiate the rules whereby the colleagues in the services are allowed to enjoy promotion to grades AD13 and AD14, both on a transitional basis, and in the framework of Senior Expert positions. The same step should apply to the ASTs.

The CLP acts on low cost flights

Following the message dated March 31 from the PMO MIPS, informing MIPS correspondents in the General Directorships that from now on, as of April 1 2014, low cost flights will be offered by the approved travel agency and will be factored into the setting of the standard price of the cheapest possible ticket, the Brussels Local Staff Committee has drawn the attention of the administration to the constant erosion of staff working conditions, in the case in point in the performance of duties in the framework of missions, and has demanded that this situation be reviewed in concert with staff representatives.

Also see readers’ letters on this matter.

Mendoza / Commission decision of February 27 2014

With reference to this decision, the EU Public Service Tribunal was in full agreement with the Commission and EPSO on a number of important aspects of the organisation of the competition:

- The fact that a candidate has passed the written test earlier does not stand as a disadvantage or even breach of the principle of equality of treatment. In fact, the Tribunal has adopted the position since 2008 that candidates are assessed on the basis of skills and not knowledge. In this new system the order in which steps are passed is of little importance;

- The stability of the jury is still important, but must be refined according to the stage of the competition: in other words, it is important for the jury to have a full meeting every two or three days for the allocation of the final marks.

Read the decision.

Letter from U4U to Directors General and Heads of Services

(U4U has already had meetings with over 10 DGs on this subject)

Negotiations on working hours have been declared closed by the Commission. The final decision contains some important provisions, particularly on core time and the manual recording of the actual times when the party in question is present. These two subject areas have been deemed essential by personnel, as expressed in a petition signed by 8,000 colleagues, addressed to the College.

The Commission wanted the application of the new system to be under the control of the Directors General. By the end of 2015, the system assessment date, you will therefore be responsible for its success and its acceptance by personnel.

We would like, then, to highlight three crucial elements:
• The definition of “core time”;
• The manual recording of actual attendance time;
• The launch of an intense social dialogue within your services.

Core time
The decision, plus the note from Mrs Souka in her communication to the TPOs on April 3, “introduces an element of significant flexibility, which our colleagues will certainly appreciate, to wit, the possibility for the line manager to adjust core time to suit individual needs and to do this at the request of the staff member (….)" in order better to "accommodate the wide range of the colleagues’ individual situations".
Thanks to this provision, following social dialogue within your services, it would mean that some colleagues would have a better work/life balance. This could be achieved, for example, by offering them the possibility of time off in lieu by clearing Wednesday or Friday afternoon or Monday morning, depending on their limitations and in keeping with the specific needs of the service. This flexibility lies at the heart of the new decision as it affects working hours.
We would like to point out the fact that this is already common practice in a good many other institutions and services. While the fundamental nature of the Commission prevents it from generalising such practices, the staff are going to find it impossible to understand why your Directorate General would fail to authorise them in all cases where they are possible.
U4U will be keeping a close eye on this area, not just at the time the 2015 balance sheet comes out, but throughout its implementation, since this will be monitored by the Joint Committee (Copar) in particular.

Manual recording of attendance hours by staff
The staff would like to see a system based on trust. The tradition and the pride of our institution based on a loyal and competent personnel is in line with the political nature of our Institution, not to mention work rates, taking into account external limitations.
The new single system – Sysper TIM Management – allows for this, and indeed recommends it. Any exemptions allowed to exist are to be justified, supervised at DG level, and above all must comply with the confidentiality rules recommended by the "data controller". The double recording system, for example, with lists to be signed at the secretariats, is pointless, risky, out of step with the new execution provisions, and, indeed, breaches the recommended confidentiality regulations. We trust that you will exercise your responsibility to set up a system which respects all individuals, one which promotes sensible work relationships.

Social dialogue in your services
The new system cannot and must not be implemented in an authoritarian or arbitrary manner. This is why we are certain that you will favour an implementation procedure which will stem from a social dialogue in your services, one to which we are keen to make constructive contributions.
Management should listen to staff, seek to persuade them, and design a flexible, modern application method. Such a consultation procedure should always be the rule. And for that matter, this is every bit as true in the current context of our public service. Indeed, over a period of ten years, in 2003 and 2013, the service has been subjected to reforms which have deeply affected personnel. And along with reform there have been restructuring initiatives, staff cuts, work space reductions, and so on. We really must strive to mitigate the situation everywhere we can. On the subject of working time, we do have a little leeway.
Our trade union is ready to meet with you whenever it may be convenient for you to talk.

Please find below, for your information, the text of a letter sent by our trade union to Mrs Irène Souka.
I look forward to hearing of fresh provisions for the implementation of working time systems in keeping with staff wishes.

Yours sincerely…

Letter from U4U to DG HR

Many thanks for your communication dated April 3 2014, following our note dated April 1 from the staff associations group, regarding the draft decision concerning working hours.

U4U/RS has taken note of the steps forward made as a result of the “intensive discussion process” which has characterised the preparation of this Decision, following the proposals made by the Staff Associations, both regarding core time and the possibilities for making up time, flexibility and recording work hours.

Our organisation saw the attendance hours recording by the staff themselves, via the "sysper TIM management", a response to the petition signed by nearly 8,000 colleagues, as a priority.

I have taken note of the fact that this system is also recommended by DG HR and that the exemptions which may occur now and again would be both rare, supervised and compliant with the confidentiality rules recommended by the "data controller". I have also noted the facility to set up core times which are specific to the individual, in keeping with management wishes.

Although U4U/RS is not entirely satisfied with the overall result as it emerges from a reading of the text arising from the social dialogue (specifically, we would have preferred that there be no double recording system, and we would have liked time off in lieu to be more than that ultimately granted, etc.) our organisation is not keen on continuing the social dialogue as a “political discussion”, as granted by the “framework agreement”, even if such discussion supports the possibility of holding such dialogue, supported by the other staff associations. This restraint on our part also stems from a wish to give every chance to the pursuit of fruitful social dialogue on the other 5 areas, as promised by yourself, and which we fervently hope for.

We are intending to request a political dialogue of this nature at the end of a year of experimentation with the new system, as the facts will then reveal if the fears and hopes of one side or the other match reality. Until that time, we are counting on DG HR to ensure, this being its role, that everything works as it should, in the twin interests of the institution and the personnel, the one being unable to exist without the other.

EPSO Competition

- EU (I): EPSO/AST/133/14 - INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES (ICT) (AST 3)
Area 1 – Information systems
Area 2 ­– Information Systems Security
Area 3 – Networks and Telecoms
Area 4 – Office Automation Infrastructure and data centre
Area 5 ­– Web
Publication: June 12 2014 – Official Gazette C 178 A
Closing date: July 15 2014.

- EU Competition (II)
According to our information, the results of the PACHTITIS competition re-run should be published very soon. The results of the internal competition should also be known before July 21.

Check our training schemes for the EPSO competition

Appeal against salary adjustments

A public discussion was held on June 6 (some 60 people attended) regarding the appeal against 2011 and 2012 SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.

Representatives from all the staff associations involved in this joint effort to prepare Appeal Templates took part.

An appeal form against the salary information sheet we have received, with only a 0.8% rise for 2011 and 2012, was submitted by the attorneys.

The attack will be based on the following facts:

• The legal basis has not been clearly established;
• The justification (ground No 4) of the 2 regulations does not clearly justify the decision, the text is vague (only stating that 0% and that 0.8% are appropriate);
• The principles of proportionality, acquired rights and legitimate expectations have not been respected.

The floor put forward some additional arguments. A representative of the retirees recalled the fact that in the former staff regulations two kinds were mentioned: one called “normal”, the other “crisis”, but this was neither one nor the other. If the wording were to be applied correctly, calculations had to be carried out using the “normal” regulations, then the “crisis” method had to be factored in as a correction coefficient. Nobody seemed to want to remember that.
Furthermore, the “serious and sudden” crisis struck in 2009, leading to an adjustment in 2010 (0.1%). Then in 2011, the crisis was not “sudden” as stated by the Council. It estimated that two claims were needed, one for each year.

Other speakers felt that the Commission, the Council and the Parliament had incorrectly implemented the ruling of the court, which had rejected the adjustment. In actual fact, the Court had asked that one method be followed, while our authorities had acted otherwise. There were grounds for examining this point.

The claim form, amended to take account of these comments, will be uploaded to the shared website, in the very near future. We invite the colleagues to make use of it.

A NEW DEAL FOR EUROPE

Facing the crisis situation seriously affecting in particular the Member States from the south (but not just them), a number of European citizens, from 8 MSs (FR, IT, ES, CZ, BE, GR, LUX, HU), met to propose a European Citizen Initiative (initiative citoyenne européenne – ICE)* calling on the European Commission to propose a special European plan for sustainable development and employment, to stimulate the European economy and to create new jobs. They have called their initiative A NEW DEAL FOR EUROPE.

This initiative holds that European unification has brought peace, democracy and well-being to a continent impoverished and ravaged by two world wars. But now it appears that the European Union has no idea how to deal with the challenges it has to face. Change is needed.

In a press conference held simultaneously in the 8 countries, on 24.3.2014, the promoters of the ICE, declared that they were "…no longer prepared to accept this Europe of austerity and unemployment, of insecure and underpaid work, of cuts in social protection, increasing poverty, economic and social decline, and the end of hope”. They called for "… a better Europe with an economy that was not only more integrated, but also more self-supporting, …"

In this light they demanded that the following initiatives be launched as a matter of urgency:

• a sustainable development plan (research and development, renewable energy, infrastructure networks, ecological agriculture, protection for the environment and cultural heritage, etc.);
• an emergency youth employment plan; plus a
• European solidarity fund.

This “New Deal for Europe” would be funded by the EU’s own resources, such as the Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) and the carbon tax. These own resources could generate some 400 billion euros in three years.

This initiative is already backed by a number of European representatives, politicians, and 4 of the 7 candidates for the presidency of the Commission. The Belgian Committee: Philippe Bioul, Philippe D. Grosjean, Alberto Lampasona, Alessandro Manghisi, Vlassis Sfyroeras, Jean-Paul Soyer, Roger Vancampenhout, Georges Vlandas, Pierres Loubières etc.

We should all support this initiative by adding our signatures on the newdeal4europe website.

The signatures will be rendered anonymous on a Luxembourg website guaranteed by the national authorities of this country. Following the count, the scrutineer will not refer to the names. After one year the file will be deleted.

* The European Citizen Initiative (ICE), established by article 11 of the Treaty of Lisbon (Treaty on the European Union), allows one million citizens of the European Union (EU), as long as they are nationals from at least seven Member States, to invite the European Commission to present a legislative proposal in the framework of the powers granted to the Union by the Treaty.

Readers’ correspondence…

"I have heard that the staff representative was discussing MIPS information recommending that Ryanair be favoured, as they now fly out of Zaventem. Both myself and the colleagues with whom I have discussed this are rather concerned, not just about low cost companies in general, but about one in particular: Ryanair. This company has a pretty awful reputation. According to reports, in 2008 and 2012, two Ryanair flights had to make a forced landing because of cabin depressurisation. Over a period of 10 years, no less than 18 incidents have been reported regarding this company. It has been sanctioned on a number of occasions, by the EC itself (in 2003), but also by France (2013) for a range of breaches, and in particular for suspect commercial or company practices.

It would appear that HR is encouraging the use of this company, but has given no indication as to whether, in the case of problems, the policy officer will be appropriately covered, at least to no less an extent than with the traditional companies.

The concern of the colleagues, many of whom do not personally use the company, mainly for safety reasons, is that they could be forced to travel using this airline, as long as it offers cheaper rates, and they are denied other alternatives. People who do personally use this company have not made their feelings clear. Those who have approached us with their concerns have stated that this is not a matter of comfort, or indeed of ethical issues.

We are already travelling on the cheaper flights, particularly in the case of the long hauls, where price differences can be considerable, with low cost companies, with the aim of sparing the taxpayers who fund the service we offer from prohibitive costs. I have not heard any responses on this subject.

The step which has been taken with the MIPS information could well be a step towards an obligation to use a certain company which is guilty of doubtful practices. It is this obligation we would like to avoid by obtaining the assurance from a DG HR that this is not envisaged. It would also be interesting to investigate the other related considerations (environmental, social, competition-related, political, which are no less important)."

The Agri Cafe(teria)

Here is the message which was communicated on June 4 to the staff of Agri by one of the U4U representatives to DG Agri:

"Today, June 4, there are no more than 3 staff in the cafeteria, one of them setting up the meeting rooms. This morning there were no clean cups since the two staff present were busy, one at the cash register and the other with the coffee machine.

The place is one staff member short, but the management company has refused to replace her.

If, like me, you consider this unsatisfactory, I suggest you send the following email to OIB SELFS RESTAURANTS CAFETERIAS:

“The Rue de la Loi 130 cafeteria is today short-staffed. The overstretched staff don’t even have time to wash the crockery.
This is unacceptable.
I ask that you insist that the management company correctly perform its duties using the staff required."

Join U4U

U4U relies solely on the support of its members. Standard membership costs €15 a year, and the support contribution is €60 a year.

Moreover, U4U has launched a call for subscriptions to finance its legal actions against the most negative aspects of the reform. All contributions, no matter how small, are welcome!

Membership fees and support contributions should be paid to U4U’s account with BNP PARISBAS FORTIS,
IBAN: BE39 0016 3506 3019
BIC: GEBABEBB

with the reference "2014 call for subscriptions" .

Join us now !

UNION FOR UNITY – U4U
Éditeur: Georges Vlandas
Rédacteur en chef : V. Sfyroeras
Comité de Rédaction: Paul Clairet, Fabrice Andreone, Sylvie Vlandas, Tomas Garcia Azcarate, Kim Slama,
Gérard Hanney, Sazan Pakalin, Victor Juan Linares, Agim Islamaj, Yves Dumont, Patrice Grosjean, Jacques Babot,
Helen Conefrey, Philippe Keraudren, Catherine Vieilledent, Georges Spyrou, Philippe Léonet, Jean-Paul Soyer,
Daniel Baruchel, Carmen Zammit, Bertrand Soret, Ute Bolduan

Our web site     Contact us     Unsubscribe