|
Editorial: elections for the Brussels Staff Committee: here we go!
The elections for
the Brussels Staff Committee will commence on 9 June 2015.
U4U will submit a
full list of colleagues representative of the diversity of the European Civil
Service.
U4U was created
just over 5 years ago. We have several thousand members working in all the
institutions, services, and executive and regulatory agencies of the European
Union and worldwide.
U4U has provided
staff representation with new ideas and practices, achieving significant
results, either alone or with other trade unions. The campaign will be a
platform for publicising our achievements as well as forming an outlook for
future action. We have:
·
Developed practices related to encouraging staff members to become more
closely involved in union activities: U4U has representatives in a large
number of DGs (see the list at the end of this edition), organises regular
meetings at the workplace to facilitate the attendance of staff, consults staff
regularly to refine its positions (for example, see below – the consultation on
working hours), and leads working groups and joint action committees (for
example, the Contract Agents’ Collective or AST careers).
·
Strengthened social dialogue by making practical proposals
in a wide range of areas: career monitoring and talent screening policy,
mobility policy, staff appraisal policy, policies to reduce disparities and job
insecurity, management of working hours, social dialogue, well-being at the
workplace, health insurance, canteens, etc.
·
Encouraged united action between trade union organisations
and stood up for staff unity: a common front for union organisations on
certain topics, action collectives for united action against disparities and
discriminatory regulations, joint list for the various elections (Commission
and SEAE), etc.
·
Promoted a European citizen-based approach.
Defending the interests of staff is inseparable from defending the interests of
the European institutions: their role in defending the Community-based method
is the principal safeguard of the general interest. If the European
construction collapses, its civil service will surely suffer.
We make every effort
to communicate with staff. Our entire trade union and citizen-based
approach is explained in a
series of regular publications
and
websites
without parallel in terms of staff representation. We also publish a
theoretical review –
Graspe
– and a review on
European Education.
Management of working hours
The transition to a
40-hour working week has resulted in the introduction of a new General
Implementing Provision (GIP), since the College of Mr Barroso wanted, as usual,
to provide the Council with some guarantees and a clear demonstration that it
was strictly applying the extension of working hours.
In early 2014, U4U
had supported the
petition
which warned against a new organisational culture influenced by excessive
controls.
Distrust and
frustration are extremely powerful factors in demotivating staff and can lead
to a significant loss of efficiency. The trust that exists between colleagues
is a major cornerstone of our organisation, based on cooperation and team
spirit. The petition recommended the introduction of simple, flexible and
inexpensive means of controlling working hours, based on trust and thereby
preserving cooperation between colleagues and the innovative culture of our
Institution. The petition, which was translated into 12 EU languages, received
more than 7,000 signatures.
On that basis, U4U
negotiated the implementation of a new control system with the following key
characteristics:
• Attendance checks
based on trust – colleagues enter their working hours themselves, excluding
double checks via the secretariats;
• The
implementation of flexible working hours, allowing specific or individualised
core time hours, when this is in the service's best interests;
• The possibility
of more than 16 recoverable hours (20 recoverable hours throughout the year);
• Monitoring of the
system by a joint committee, leading to a review and possible improvements.
U4U then met with
fifteen Directorates-General to confirm that the Directors-General intended to
apply these principles in the spirit of the results of the negotiations and to
prepare for the review to be conducted in 2015. All the DGs consulted confirmed
they wished to implement the GIP on control of working hours in full.
U4U then directly
consulted staff to prepare this review in line with colleagues' real
experiences.
A more contrasting picture emerged.
A little over two-thirds of the 1,200 responses confirmed that the rules
imposed had been followed. On the other hand, practices emerged in some
responses that were less consistent with the rules, and in some cases
completely contrary to them. During the assessment to be carried out in 2015,
U4U will insist on reforming these abnormal practices and improving colleagues'
lives.
Assessment of the 2014 exercise for Senior Experts
With the revised
Staff Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2014, the legislature
took a step in the direction of a position-based rather than a career-based
civil service. This was in complete contrast to the 2004 reform, which opened
up the careers of all categories of AST and AD staff. The blocking of AD and
AST careers therefore limited access to the higher grades based on jobs, an
approach that before 2014 only applied to political posts (Directors and
Directors-General).
This restricted
access to the end-of-career grades further undermines the independence of the
European Civil Service, already suffering from increasing job insecurity (AC
and AT).
It should also be
noted that the Council was assisted by certain staff representatives,who hoped
that the savings generated by the career blocking would be redistributed to
staff hired since 2004. Result: the Council penalised everybody, and in
particular sacrificed the careers of more than 4,000 colleagues, a blockage
that will also concern new colleagues promoted to AD12 and AST9.
However, the unions
managed to negotiate some
measures to reduce the impact of
this career limitation
and make it less harsh:
·
a second
non-management grouping, giving access to grades AD 13 and AD 14 and senior
assistants above AST 9;
·
transitional arrangements that compensate slightly for this career limitation:
two additional grades for AD 12 and AD 13 colleagues on 31 December 2013
(unfortunately not available to AST grades);
·
the
possibility of endorsing a maximum of 600 colleagues as equivalent Advisers or
Heads of Unit, before 31 December 2015.
Let us look at the
current situation for staff, whose careers have been restricted by the new
Staff Regulations and the decision on job types:
·
Although
the DG HR notified the Resource Units of the DGs, it appears that the
information intended for those concerned by these issues has not always been
passed on in an effective manner, meaning that they were unable to grasp
certain aspects of the impact on their careers: loss of the two extra
transitional grades for AD 12 and AD 13 staff, restricted mobility of
colleagues appointed as Senior Experts, only to Senior Expert or Adviser
positions.
·
The
selection procedure for Senior Experts has not been harmonised by the DG HR,
with the selection methods varying from one DG to another.
·
After
this first Senior Expert appointment exercise (just over 100 posts), the
Commission is preparing to commence a second exercise in the spring for an
additional 140 posts.
·
The
Commission has not yet begun the exercise enabling colleagues to be
reclassified as Adviser equivalent or Head of Unit, a
transitional measure provided for in Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations. Other
institutions, like the Council, have already implemented this provision that
will allow the careers of 600 colleagues to be unblocked before the end of
2015. It would be a shame not to take this opportunity when we know that more
than 3,000 AD colleagues have lost any prospect of a career, which is obviously
not very motivating!
U4U therefore
requests the Commission to:
- Harmonise the
appointment procedure to Senior Expert posts, irrespective of the DG;
- Increase the
number of posts provided for Senior Expert appointments, not to organise an
artificial shortage that will cause huge frustration in this category, and to
do likewise for access to Senior Assistant posts;
- Organise the
labelling process as quickly as possible, which will enable the careers of 600
colleagues to be unblocked.
U4U will monitor
this situation very closely and will keep you informed.
2015 promotion system and promotion exercise: What's happening?
Several union
organisations have sent all Commission staff incorrect and inaccurate
information on the promotion system, following the Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro /
EEAS judgment of 18 March 2015 (F-51/14) by the EU Civil Service Tribunal (TFP).
In addition, on 24 March the Tribunal also gave a second judgment (case
Magiuili/Commission, F-61/14) related to promotions. Let us explore the legal
situation and present the latest information on the current promotion exercise.
What is the
result of the judgments given by the TFP in the Monteiro and Magiuli cases with
regard to the Commission's promotion system?
In the Monteiro/
EEAS case, the petitioner raised a plea of illegality in respect of the EEAS
promotion system on account of a failure to compare the merits of the
candidates. The judge ruled in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the
following arguments:
·
The
comparison of merits made by the EEAS is not sufficiently discriminating to
allow harmonisation;
·
The
comparison of merits is based on synoptic tables that do not allow an accurate
presentation of the merits of each person;
·
The
period allowed for the comparison of merits is inadequate;
·
The AIPN
has no necessary margin at the end of the promotion exercise to ensure the
comparison of merits.
In the present
case, this judgment is imposed only on the EEAS. The Commission – although it
must carefully study the arguments of the TFP in this case – is not directly
concerned by this judgment, particularly as the modalities of our promotion
system are different from those of the EEAS system.
What are the
differences between the Commission's promotion system and that of the EEAS?
First of all, the period allowed for the comparison of merits is significantly
greater in the existing procedure of the Commission than in that in force at
the EEAS, which allows us to carry out this exercise under good conditions.
Next, the working groups (which, in certain conditions, can examine cases on
their own initiative), the Promotion Committee (which has a 5% correction
quota) and the AIPN on completion of the exercise have effective tools to
provide as discriminating a comparison of merits as possible. Finally, the
different actors involved in the promotion exercise do not use summary tables
to carry out this task, but have direct access to Sysper 2 to verify the
appraisals.
The EEAS lodged an
appeal against the TFP's judgment in the Monteiro / EEAS case which, while it
is not suspensive, means awaiting the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.
In the Magiuili /
Commission case of 24 March 2015 (F-61/14), the petitioner did not raise a plea
of illegality in respect of the Commission's promotion system, but challenged
his non-promotion, on the grounds that a colleague had been promoted with worse
appraisal reports than the petitioner.
In this judgment,
the TFP talked at length about the monitoring of legality with regard to
promotions, which restricts the judge's authority to verifying an obvious error
of judgement or an error in law, which as a result leaves the institution with
considerable discretionary powers with regard to promotion, subject to
compliance with the legal and procedural standards. In this case, the TFP did
not challenge the Commission's promotion system.
In a different case
(Silvan / European Commission, case F-83/14), the petitioner raised a plea of
illegality against the promotion system. This case was heard on 23 March 2015,
and it is unlikely that the result will be known until the autumn, or even the
end of the year.
What are the
consequences of these cases for the promotion exercise currently in progress at
the Commission? The result of the above is that there is currently no factor
that could call into question the legal safety of the present promotion
exercise that concerns on average 25% of the Commission's staff, i.e. more than
4,000 colleagues.
While U4U is an
organisation that is respectful of the law, it remains true that it is not
necessary to frighten staff away, as has been the case with certain
tub-thumping, demagogic trade unions.
Nor should we
continue to mix legal problems with political problems. U4U believes it is
necessary to undertake an appraisal of the current system and its
implementation, in concert with the Commission. On the basis of this appraisal,
we will then be able to see what needs to be done: improving or changing the
current appraisal/promotion system, but solely with a view improving the rights
of colleagues. The election period must not be an excuse for reckless
one-upmanship that will have a harmful effect on staff.
The current
promotion exercise
• The promotion
procedure
In each DG, the
Directors are presently discussing the proposals for promotion with the Heads
of Unit. The Directors will then negotiate with the Director-General, before
the latter adopts a draft list, which will be discussed with the Staff
Committee's representatives in May 2015. Following these meetings, each
Director-General will adopt his/her list of proposals, which will be made
public in June 2015. The working groups of the AD and AST Promotion Committees
will examine all of the appeals against these proposals between July and
September 2015, in order to put forward their recommendations to the AD and AST
Promotion Committees. In October 2015, these Committees will adopt an opinion,
with a draft list for the attention of the AIPN: the Director-General of the DG
HR. The AIPN should make its decision in October and the list should be
published in early November 2015. The salary catch-up, with effect from 1
January 2015, should be paid before the end of 2015.
The U4U
representatives will play an active role in all stages of the promotion
exercise, as in previous years.
• The method for
calculating promotion quotas by DG and by grade
Further to the
demands of staff representatives, the Commission agreed to review the system
for calculating promotion quotas. The distribution of promotion quotas by DG
and by grade was conducted in proportion with the number of promotable people,
in other words those with more than two years seniority in the grade, on the
basis of the indications provided by Annex 1B of the Staff Regulations.
• The exceptions
to the calculation of promotion quotas for grades AD 12 and AD 13
In addition, there
are exceptions to the calculation of promotion quotas concerning grades AD 12
and AD 13. The calculation of quotas for these grades is based on the number of
people qualified for promotion and not on the number of promotable people, as
with other grades. The Commission therefore only considers those officials in
Adviser or Senior Expert management posts when calculating the quotas for these
two grades.
There are
approximately 2,000 promotable colleagues of grade AD 13, including 600 Heads
of Unit and Senior Experts. With the rate of promotion to AD 14 standing at
15%, we can assume a calculation of around 100 promotions to AD 14 for the
purposes of this exercise. It is a simple matter to calculate the difference by
applying the 15% rate on the promotable population.
The situation is
more complex for those in grade AD 12 posts. There are about 2,700 promotable
officials. However, the promotion in this grade must take account of colleagues
who are already heads of unit/advisers, as well as colleagues who, when
becoming Senior Expert, are promoted from AD 12 to AD 13. Once again, it is a
simple matter to calculate the difference by applying the 15% promotion rate to
2,700.
This approach
substantially reduces the chances of promotion for middle management. U4U
requests that a less restrictive approach be adopted in this respect. Indeed,
this system for calculating promotion quotas for AD 12 and AD 13 grades works
against the need to motivate middle management staff, who have significant
responsibility within the Commission's services.
In addition to the
publication of Senior Expert and Senior Assistant posts, U4U requests that the
Commission commence the labelling exercise quickly – a transitional measure in
Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations – which will also increase the promotion
quota in the AD 13 grade, at least, and therefore increase the promotion
opportunities to AD 14 (see previous article).
• The promotion
cascades from the higher to the lower grades, to remedy existing disparities
(post/pre-2004)
The
Directorate-Generals will continue to benefit from the “cascades” system that
provides for the recovery of unused promotion quotas in the higher grades so
that they can be redistributed in the lower grades in order to reduce
disparities and support colleagues recruited since 2004. The limit is imposed
by the promotion rates in Annex IB, which are 38% in the entry grades for ADs.
To finish, U4U will
keep you informed of developments with regard to promotions on completion of
the exercise in a clear, concise and straightforward manner.
Contract Agents’ Collective: Where are the concrete measures?
It is generally
acknowledged that a reform of the European Commission regulations on the
recruitment, careers and mobility of Contract Agents (AC) is urgently required
(also by the Administration). The Contract Agents’ Collective here presents the
main claims that were put forward to the Commissioner Mrs Georgieva at her
meeting with all the trade unions on 20 March 2015. The policy that will be
implemented at the Commission is in line with the objectives of the staff
representatives.
Recruitment,
classification
- Definition of
a recruitment policy for ACs
The DG HR
recognises the need for a practical and responsible policy concerning the 6,000
contract agents it employs. It will now work to achieve specific and fair rules
to define its new recruitment policy. Bearing in mind the current economic
crisis, there is a genuine consideration of all the claims made by the unions,
and in particular by U4U over the last six years:
Internal
competitions:
• Holding
internal competitions in 2015.
• Not only on a
one-off basis, but subsequently to be requested every two (or even three)
years.
• 10% quota
(possibly 5% each year)
Category I
Negotiations
with companies for GF1 to be able to take part in the internal competitions,
including after 6 years.
Motivation
Recognition of
the need to motivate contract agents with competitions and to offer them career
prospects and attractive conditions. This need has been recognised as
beneficial not only for Contract Agents, but also for the European Commission
itself and the European Civil Service.
- Greater
account taken of work experience to offer higher salaries on entry to the Civil
Service
The forthcoming
competitions will take account of the professional experience acquired prior to
taking employment with the European Commission in order to readjust salaries
appropriately.
- Organisation
of CAST competitions (also providing mobility).
• Organisation of
CAST competitions in 2015 that will open the way to inter-institutional
mobility.
• CAST for
internal purposes for all
• Mobility:
holds enormous possibilities for ACs
Organisation of
"reclassifications" with the aim of changing categories
There is a lot to
be done at AC level with regard to reclassification rates and the time they
require to be implemented.
Internal
competitions enabling ACs to become permanent employees from 2015
The claim made to
the Commission at the meeting was mainly focused on the more permanent nature
of these internal competitions (2 or 3 times per year), rather than on an
exceptional basis.
Mobility, End of
contract
Organisation of
horizontal mobility (between offices, agencies, etc.) and vertical mobility
(from DGs to agencies, offices, etc.). Desire for greater flexibility with
regard to the mobility of ACs, both horizontal (between offices, agencies,
etc.) and vertical (from DGs to agencies, etc.)
AC salary levels
in Luxembourg below the social minimum level.
The testimony of
colleagues in Luxembourg is illustrative and pertinent for colleagues in
Brussels as well. For the situation to improve, there must be:
• Mobilisation
and involvement of ACs
• UNITED action
by the trade unions
• A strong
relationship
EPSO assessment, twelve years after the Office was created
EPSO was created by
a decision of the EU institutions and a second decision by their Secretaries
General. The main objective of this institutional body is to generate
large-scale savings and enable the institutions to deal with future expansion
by streamlining the selection process.
What is the
context of EPSO?
The institutions
display their support for EPSO in political terms. However, the budget
dedicated to the selection of staff is relatively small. The Office's workforce
is also quite modest, and some institutions, such as the European Parliament,
regularly impose a burden on the EPSO budget with reserves. It is important at
this stage to emphasise that the question of selection is a power game between
the different institutions and between the EU and its Member States.
Another very
important aspect concerns the medium- to long-term unpredictability of staff
needs on the part of the institutions.
However, we can now
see a certain stability in the forms of the competitions since 2010, until
which time they had been liable to vary considerably (Generalist Competitions
v. Specialist Competitions, reserve lists with classifications v. lists by
merit group v. lists without classifications, level of grades of competitions,
skills-based tests v. knowledge-based tests, etc.).
In short, the
Office operates in a sometimes difficult context while being subject to
(occasionally harsh) criticism in one form or another.
How do we assess
the first 12 years of EPSO's performance?
EPSO has
successfully provided the institutions with lists of successful candidates in
good time, enabling the recruitment of more than 3,000 colleagues from new EU
Member States since 2004. This objective was also achieved for the next two
expansions.
We should also note
that the Office has improved the quality of selection and streamlined the
selection processes with an annual competition system (AD, AST and linguists)
and the provision of a reserve list just over a year after the publication of
the competition, as opposed to a 2 and a half year waiting period before 2007,
while at the same time reducing the organisational costs. These changes have
also affected the competitions and selections.
The debate
nevertheless remains open on the nature of the tests, which some believe should
relate to a more in-depth and systematic knowledge of Europe, to encourage
recruitment of staff who genuinely share European values. It must, however, be
noted that this knowledge is assessed as part of the evaluation centre. The
question remains of knowing whether this assessment should not also be
conducted at the time of the CBT tests and how, without turning it into a
"quiz" on Europe.
It should also be
noted that the streamlining of the competition system involved the
professionalisation of the selection boards and the appointment of permanent
boards. Looking back over three years, the results have been positive. We
should not forget, however, that a hard core of ten board members is not
sufficient, particularly as it is increasingly difficult to find non-permanent
boards due to the pressure of work and the low priority accorded to this
activity by the institutions.
With regard to the
boards, we should finally emphasise that the Community Courts have clearly
established the distribution of competences between EPSO and the boards and
have also clarified the most important principles concerning how they are
composed and the male/female split.
On the basis of a
satisfaction survey on a sample of 1,800 people in 10 institutions, over 90% of
managers stated they were satisfied with the skills levels of new recruits. The
attractiveness of the institutions on the European jobs market remains
significant. Indeed, the success of the competitions organised by EPSO on
behalf of the institutions is undeniable: approximately 30,000 candidates for
the annual AD competition in spite of lower salary levels on entry to the
European Civil Service, reduced career prospects and the noticeable
professional downgrading within the institutions.
This attractiveness
is further confirmed by the generally positive image of the EU institutions as
employers in the EU Member States (although only the 10th best employer of the
500 best European employers – Trendence), along with the largest companies in
Europe.
In addition, it
should also be noted that the results of the satisfaction surveys of
stakeholders and candidates in the ESPO competitions are also positive.
What challenges
does the future hold for EPSO?
These challenges
must be seen in the global context and in particular in the context of the
Staff Regulations and staff demographics.
In spite of the 5%
reduction in budgetary posts in the EU institutions, a large proportion of the
staff will reach retirement age in the next 10 years. It will probably be
necessary to organise competitions and selections to prepare for the future of
the European Union and its institutions, which requires an effective selection
system organised by the institutions themselves and not by the Member States.
The other major
challenge to be tackled by the institutions and EPSO concerns the geographical
distribution of recruitments. We can see today a growing geographical imbalance
in selection and recruitment, particularly in the basic grades. Nationals of
the larger Member States and the Northern States, where salaries are higher,
are increasingly absent from the competitions. On the other hand, a growing
number of nationals of certain new Member States, those from the South and
those in trouble, are attending the competitions and being recruited. This
situation is linked to the last two reviews of the Staff Regulations and, in
particular, to the cut in entry salaries and the diminishing career prospects
(blockages, compartmentalisation in all categories imposed by the Member
States, etc.). However, it is absolutely crucial that the composition of the
workforce in the institutions reflects the diversity of European society, so
that it can identify with it!
Although the
revision of the provisions of article 27 of the Staff Regulations goes some way
towards remedying these imbalances, it does not, however, address the
fundamental issue: pay levels, career prospects and the professional interest
to attract nationals of those countries with the highest salaries. It is clear
that this aspect is outside of EPSO's remit, even though for some years now
action has been taken to promote European careers in the under-represented
Member States.
The other balance
issue that must be monitored concerns the gender ratio in recruitment. While
there were imbalances unfavourable to women in the past, with regard to
selection, the situation appears to have significantly improved: in the last
competition, 53% of the successful candidates and 56% of those recruited were
women. EPSO also plans to introduce an e-tray test for the AD
competitions to guarantee a good male/female structural balance. The
Vice-President, Mrs Georgieva, also stated at her hearing before the European
Parliament and subsequently that she attached considerable importance to this
issue.
Compared to 2002,
the Office has also improved the linguistic aspect of the tests (all the
pre-selection tests are now available in all the official languages of the EU).
It will be important in the future to extend this possibility to other types of
test, because although linguistic skills are important, they must be balanced
with professional skills in one or more of the basic fields. Both specialists
and generalists with linguistic skills are recruited by the institutions, and
this aspect must not take priority over skills and knowledge, except, of
course, in the case of the language services.
The
professionalisation of the boards, with permanent boards, since 2010 is an
important step in ensuring the reliability of the competitions and selections.
After several years of operation, the appraisal of the performance of the
permanent board system is positive, and it seems like a good idea to strengthen
the permanent board team, which is still rather small. In order to broaden the
choice of the institutions and Staff Committees and to further support this
professionalisation, it would also be helpful to make participation on the
boards more attractive for colleagues. The institutions must underline the
importance of the selection process, which constitutes the initial image of the
institutions.
In a context of
rapid and permanent changes worldwide in terms of evaluation tools and methods
(remote testing, IBT, gamification, etc.), it is important that EPSO remains
abreast of changes if it is to continue to be competitive, without prejudice to
any decisions by the institutions concerning selection policy. Such innovations
will enable the institutions to continue to recruit the best candidates
according to their needs and the existing context. It has to be kept in mind,
however, that the objective is to recruit genuinely competent candidates and
that the tools must demonstrate that they make a genuine contribution to this
objective.
One last major
issue concerns the selection of contract agents. The Office has also organised
a number of CASTs to select contract agents working mainly in the Commission's
services and the executive agencies. It should be noted that a year ago the
Commission adopted a derogation of the text concerning the recruitment of
contract staff, covered by article 3 ter of the RAA. This derogation has been
extended for a further year. This means that the services can recruit on the
basis of an AMI and a simple CV. It is clear that this situation will give rise
to objections and is not consistent with the principles of equal treatment and
transparency. EPSO has, it seems, prepared a new system to replace the CAST,
which could be implemented in early 2016. In any case, it is now urgent that
contract staff posts are filled on the basis of solid, transparent and sound
systems. It would also be useful to have selection methods that favour the
Commission's mobility policy for contract staff.
It should be noted
that the AC staff recruited without CAST suffer discrimination with regard to
mobility procedures. It is therefore important to find a solution that avoids
creating a new category of staff even less well treated.
In view of the
results referred to and the forthcoming challenges, U4U invites the
institutions to prepare a formal assessment of EPSO's activities since 2002
and, if necessary, to improve the resources of this Office. In all cases, it
remains crucial for the institutions to maintain control of the selection
process, essential for the independence of the European Civil Service. EPSO is
the main tool for this process. U4U will therefore keep a very close eye on the
development of this Office!
Breaking Down Barriers: Towards Gender Equality at Work
U4U participated to
lunch break seminar organised by CESI in Brussels on 11 December 2014 on
“Breaking Down Barriers: Towards Gender Equality at Work”. The panel gathered
Kerstin BORN-SIRKEL, Director of Corporate and External Relations at the Centre
for European Policy Studies, Philippe KERAUDREN, Vice-President of U4U, Acting
Head of Unit Reflective Societies – DG Research and Innovation, Fiona O’MALLEY,
Senior Manager in the Financial Sector and Arnd BECKERS, Policy Adviser, CESI,
under the chairwomanship of Viviane TEITELBAUM, President of the European
Women’s Lobby Group and with the closing remarks by Klaus HEEGER, Secretary
General of CESI.
All speakers agreed
that “not much has happened for the last few years”. Despite a general trend of
improvement of gender equality at work, there are still quite a number of
obvious problems to solve. Among others the weak representation of women in
politics (whether in Parliaments or in governments) and in decision-making
circles of enterprises and in… trade-unions also. Besides, women still
represent, with children, a rather high number of at-risk of poverty European
citizens. Crucial in this respect is the trend towards an accumulation of
social disadvantages for women along their life course: whereas girls usually
fare better than boys at school, the transition towards labour is often the
beginning of a long road into inequalities for young women often trapped into
precarious jobs with low pay. As a consequence, the difference in average
income in the EU between men and women is still 16% and as the inequalities
grow over a life time because of the labour structure, the differential in
pension incomes between men and women even reaches 36% at the detriment of the
latter of course. This means that a high proportion of older women at the age
of pension are actually at risk of poverty when living alone.
Interestingly,
there was a consensus among speakers (and the chairwoman) as to the usefulness
of having quotas in favour of the least represented gender. The issue has been
hotly debated in general but also among feminist movements and has sparked
disagreements not only on the potential outcomes and side effects of such a
policy but, more importantly, on its philosophy and political meaning. It seems
at least, at an empirical level, that the imposition of quotas do trigger
improvements in gender equality while voluntary gender equality policies
reproduce more of the same. That is to say that, like in the market, regulation
rather than “laissez-faire” can improve the participation of women to important
areas of our social and political life.
Philippe Keraudren
for U4U also insisted that this issue of gender inequality must be linked to a
rising trend in inequalities in Europe and to the current weaknesses of
democracies in Europe. If democracies are still in favour of equality rather
than inequalities but if inequalities increase (whether we have economic growth
like in the 1990 and early 2000s or a crisis like since 2008), then we must
re-think equality and democracy. The exclusion of 52% of the population from
decision-making in the highest political and economic arenas is obviously a
serious democratic problem. However, the issue is to see whether the current
democratic systems can be improved or whether new practices of democracy should
be encouraged which could ensure much better the representation of women in
democratic outcomes.
Tribune: Officials and agents living in Belgium: the question of registration
plates
A. General
considerations on the issue of registrations
Commission
officials and agents who have a vehicle registered in another Member State
must, in certain cases, be able to drive from time to time in Belgium without
being troubled by the police. If they can at least show that they have a
vehicle registered in Belgium, they must be given the benefit of the doubt.
Alternatively, they should be able to provide evidence that the vehicle
registered in another Member State is used from time to time in both countries.
In a
previous article,
we referred to the zeal displayed by certain Brussels police officers when
dealing with colleagues driving a vehicle registered in another Member State,
irrespective of whether or not they are the owner.
This article is
intended to remind you of the legislation that applies in Belgium as well as to
show that it does not correspond with the multinational reality of our staffing
situation. The law applied in Belgium is not necessarily the same as that in
another Member State. For most of us nowadays, our roots are elsewhere in
Europe, and not always in our Member State of origin.
Having made the
choice to be the capital of Europe, Brussels also chose to host a community of
nationals of EU countries that it must treat in accordance with their special
position as expatriate guests. Belgium profits greatly from our presence and it
must be remembered that, although the officials do not pay income tax (which is
deducted at source and paid into the Community budget), they are an important
source of fiscal revenue for the country. VAT on all purchases in Belgium,
property taxes, regional taxes, motor vehicle duty and road tax, not including
the taxable revenue (VAT, which as we know constitutes the main source of tax
revenue) generated by the economic activity related to our presence. Finally,
the medical body's obligation to declare our consultation payments also
produces a significant source of tax revenue.
That being said,
and in spite of the incidents referred to in the previous article, it must be
stressed that the Belgian fiscal policy on registrations is not the most
stringent. Although the taxes related to registration are lower, or even
non-existent, in some neighbouring countries, the Belgian tax regime is about
average for Europe. In Denmark, for example, the total tax amounts to 180% of
the value of the vehicle. In addition, Belgium grants new residents six months
to put their registration in order, which is a more than reasonable period
compared to the legislation in most Member States (for example, 20 days in the
United Kingdom and one month in France).
In broader terms,
the legislation on vehicles covers numerous issues, such as insurance,
registration tax, the registration period, the fee for the licence plate, the
annual road tax, the resident's parking permit, the driving licence and the
vehicle inspection.
While the tax
factor is only one aspect of the registration issue, let us not deceive
ourselves: it is at the heart of the matter. Indeed, all of the other questions
derive from the power of the Member States to impose taxes on a vehicle
registered in their territory. This can lead to a Catch 22 situation, for while
tax asymmetry can cause some drivers to register their vehicle with the 'lowest
bidder', it does encourage a zealous approach by the authorities, sometimes
crying foul against the European spirit. As a host country for the European
institutions, and as the main fiscal beneficiary of our presence there, Belgium
must take account of the circumstances, some examples of which we will see
below.
B. What does
European legislation say?
In terms of tax,
there is no European fiscal legislation concerning vehicle registrations. The
Member States have never reached an agreement on what amounts to a "cash cow".
The only legislation that applies is of international origin. It is harmonised
as it was ratified by all the Member States and is a result of the 1958 New
York Convention. The Convention's principles were incorporated in the
Directives on temporary imports ((83/182/EEC) and permanent imports
(83/183/EEC), although the latter has never been applied to registration taxes.
All attempts by the Commission to propose a more comprehensive harmonisation of
the tax regimes on vehicle registrations have been unsuccessful. The
Commission's proposal to transfer the registration tax levy to the road tax has
unfortunately made no headway since 2005.
However, it is
standard practice throughout the European Union to require a vehicle to be
insured and to carry out a vehicle inspection in the Member State in which the
vehicle is registered.
As for the driving
licence, a non-Belgian EU national may drive in Belgium with the licence issued
by his/her Member State of origin for as long as it remains valid. However, it
can only be renewed (or replaced) by the authorities of the country in which
he/she is resident.
C. What does
Belgian legislation say about registrations?
The Belgian
legislation is based on the principle of the vehicle driver's residence. This
means that any EC official or agent resident in Belgium must drive a vehicle
registered in Belgium. The concept of residence is generally understood, but as
far as we are concerned, the fact of being entered in the local records of a
Belgian community makes us de facto residents.
Among the
exceptions to the Belgian registration regime, an issue that concerns us is the
case of a vehicle rented from a foreign car rental company. The rental contract
must not, however, be for more than six months and cannot be renewed. The
rental contract must be carried in the vehicle.
D. In what way
does the strict application of Belgian legislation not reflect the reality of
EC officials and agents?
Let us look at the
most recent cases.
1. Member States do
not all have the same legislation concerning vehicle registration.
As long as the
issue is not harmonised, the Member States can impose registration tax on the
basis of the vehicle's situation, and not only on the basis of the situation of
the person using it.
For example, you
are an official or agent posted to Brussels and you have secondary residence in
Germany. For practical reasons, you wish to use a vehicle in the country of
your secondary residence. If this vehicle remains in Germany for more than 185
days it must be registered in Germany, although in theory, according to Belgian
legislation, it should be registered in Belgium as you are officially resident
there. Consequently, if one day you happen to be in Belgium with your car
registered in Germany and you are stopped by the police, the Belgian
authorities will not hesitate to take legal action (a heavy fine, requirement
to pay the taxes, or even seizure of the vehicle purely on the grounds that it
is not insured in Belgium), as seems to be the general trend these days. It
appears that an incidental journey into Belgium may be tolerated, but that is
not entirely certain.
2. National
officials on detachment
Let us take the
case of a French official resident in Paris and on detachment to Brussels for a
limited period. If he/she remains in his/her Member State of origin for more
than six months in the year, he/she must be considered as being resident in
that country. If this person wants to stay in accommodation in Brussels, then
in order to subscribe to gas, electricity or a telephone service, he/she must
be registered with the local authorities. The person would then be considered
resident in Belgium, contrary to the principle of the usual place of residence.
Accordingly, if the person has not registered his/her vehicle in Belgium,
he/she is liable to prosecution.
3. The loan of a
vehicle
The case of a
one-off loan to a resident of a vehicle belonging to a friend or family member
has recently been clarified by a Royal Decree that came into force on 1 October
2014. In the Van Putten case, the Court considered that the matter in question
was a loan and that the prohibition of such a loan was in breach of the free
movement of capital and was not applicable in this case (while still applying
the general principle that the vehicle must be registered in the country where
the vehicle is mainly used).
E. The
Commission must negotiate an agreement with the Belgian authorities
The failure to date
to develop a European policy on vehicle registrations has direct consequences
on our lives as EC officials and agents.
While the rule is
that all colleagues resident in Belgium must register their vehicles in
Belgium, we can suffer from the lack of harmonisation and the contradictions in
the laws in force.
In spite of the
free movement of goods, capital, people and services, it must be noted that a
vehicle registered in a Member State other than Belgium whose owner resides in
Belgium cannot in theory, under current European law and case law, be driven in
Belgium. There are, however, examples where the Belgian authorities have
recognised and accepted during checks that there were cases of "incidental"
use. This being the case, the concept of "incidental use" must be clarified.
In order to avoid
legal action and judgments more or less consistent with the major principles of
the European Union, and also to avoid a form of harassment of our colleagues,
it would be helpful for the Commission to negotiate an agreement witrh the
Belgian authorities, with the result that:
1. Officials and
agents of the Commission who own a vehicle registered in another Member State
(i.e. the vehicle in question spends more than 185 days per year there, or the
State in question is the country of origin of the official or agent) can
occasionally drive in Belgium without being harassed by the police. If they can
show they at least have a vehicle registered in Belgium, they must be given the
benefit of the doubt. Alternatively, they should be able to provide evidence
that the vehicle registered in another Member State is used from time to time
in both countries.
2. All colleagues
on detachment from a Member State whose usual country of residence is not
Belgium, although they are registered with a Belgian local authority, must not
be required to register their vehicles in Belgium.
3. The police must
be duly informed of the Royal Decree following the Van Putten judgment*.
It would make sense
for the Commission and the Belgian authorities to hold discussions and reach an
agreement so that these common sense proposals may be taken into account.
* The Van Putten judgment is not a ruling against Belgium (it is a preliminary
ruling and the Member State in question is the Netherlands). Before this
judgment (on 26 April 2012), it was correct that the temporary imports
directive clearly prohibited the loan to a resident of a vehicle registered in
another Member State. This was a case in which the Court was particularly
innovative and progressive by stating that it was not possible to impose the
tax if it was only a one-off use. There have not therefore been, as the article
quoted claimed, "numerous rulings against Belgium" by the Court.
That being the case, it must be recognised that Belgium has been rather slow to
implement the principles of the Court (more than 2 years) and seems to have
been particularly active since the judgment. In fact, it is only a Royal Decree
in September 2014 (just a few months ago) that brought Belgium in line
(following proceedings brought by the services of our colleagues in the TAXUD).
It is therefore not surprising that, in most of the cases referred to, the
police were unaware of the existence of this judgment.
Readers' Correspondence
I recently became a
member of U4U in the hope that together we could change the damaging situation
of the unequal treatment of staff within the services, which is the most urgent
issue concerning contract agents.
In a
recent declaration,
Mrs Georgieva once again praised the dedication of her staff, and the need to
motivate them, but it must be noted that there are thousands of contract agents
in the field who are left without any career prospects at all.
It seems to me that
it is time to ask some pertinent questions concerning such double-talk, on the
surface arguing for a high degree of motivation, while in reality leaving a
large number of her employees (at least 20%) in permanent fear for their
future, the only certainty being that their contracts will end whatever they
do.
These questions
could be:
• Why is the work
of contract agents not assessed and why can the management not show some
appreciation? Is that not how a proper assessment should contribute to the
improved performance of the services?
• Why are contract
agents who have shown over several years that they are capable of carrying out
their duties perfectly well required by the Commission to take an external
competition to obtain confirmation that they are capable of carrying out their
duties perfectly well? The skills tests that form part of the competitions are
designed to assess the probability that employees will be capable of
successfully carrying out their duties in a number of different circumstances.
Is not the best test the one that contract agents take every day? What do
contract agents who have carried out a specialised and demanding job still have
to prove if they have completed their duties to the satisfaction of the service
where they work?
• It is logical for
staff who have taken an external competition to be rewarded for this, but
should contract agents who are wholeheartedly committed to their work be shown
the door without any real career prospects after a limited period of time,
irrespective of their professional skills and expertise and their commitment to
Europe?
• The Europe of
values is also meant to be the Europe of social justice. Where is this social
justice when two people can be doing the same job in an institution, but one
was hired before the expansion and the economic crisis and the other in more
recent years, resulting in a huge difference in how they are treated? Without
mentioning the fact that as a result of the staff cuts, the opportunities of
recent recruits to successfully complete the competition process and be rehired
are fewer than ever?
• The contract
agents sign a fixed-term contract, it is true, as the administration wants to
provide a specialist workforce to help resolve a temporary excessive workload
in one service or another. It should nevertheless be noted that in the services
where they are employed, the workload is constantly high. The main advantage of
contract staff is that they cost less and can be dismissed if they fail to
perform. Weighing our words carefully, can we not say that in this case Europe
is guilty of a mild form of social dumping?
• Does the
administration take account of the cost of recruitment, training, integration
and professional development that it has to pay every time an experienced and
capable contract agent leaves the institution? Does it make sense for the
administration to deprive itself of a member of staff who has proven to be an
excellent worker just because a contract has to come to an end?
I imagine that one
of the administration's concerns is nepotism and confirmation in contract staff
posts of employees who are not necessarily particularly competent. Would it not
be possible to establish appraisal and appointment committees to make an
independent judgment of a candidate's file, based on actual figures and
performance?
With regard to the
overall situation of contract staff, I wonder if we should work with the press
to make progress on certain issues; an article on the HR management situation
within the Commission would undoubtedly be of interest to many media outlets.
It is not so much a matter of washing our dirty linen in public, but it does
seem to me that the current situation is undermining the well-being of staff
and the positive atmosphere at work. Contract agents do not have the feeling
that they are working in a meritocratic system, but rather in a system where an
elite wants to hold on to its privileges at any price, without considering that
by protecting themselves they are turning thousands of contract agents and
their families out into the cold.
I thank you for
your ongoing commitment to the situation of contract staff and look forward to
reading your publication again soon,
*
* *
I agree with the
claims made in point 3/contract agents, concerning the condition to be imposed
that contract staff who will be offered the chance to take an internal
competition have been hired on the basis of a list of successful competition
candidates and not by other means... which is the case for a certain number of
them, though unfortunately with very little certainty involved...!
I do not intend to
go into their professional ability, but respect must be given to those who have
first followed the rule that requires one to work for a competition, that one
is eligible in the Institutions under the terms of this requirement, before
applying for internal integration or promotion competitions.
I hope I am not the
only one to make this comment, and particularly that this requirement for
legality will be taken into consideration.
Thank you for all
that you do,
Appel à votre soutien
U4U est un syndicat actif, au contact des collègues grâce à ses réunions sur
les lieux de travail, y compris hors de Bruxelles, présent dans les négociations
avec l'administration. Nous avons un site web informatif et à jour, nous éditons
des journaux réguliers, systématiquement traduits en anglais, nous vous
défendons individuellement devant l'administration et devant le Tribunal de la
Fonction publique.
Tout cela a un coût. Aidez-nous à le supporter.
Vous n'êtes pas encore membre de U4U ?
Rejoignez-nous car nous avons besoin de votre participation.
Vous êtes déjà adhérent ? Passez de notre modeste
cotisation de 15€ par an à une cotisation de soutien de 60€ par an.
Nous avons besoin de votre soutien financier. Aidez-nous à vous défendre,
à proposer des politiques de gestion du personnel plus acceptables et à contester ce
qui va nous pénaliser durement.
Pour adhérer et/ou passer à une cotisation de soutien,
utilisez ce formulaire sur
notre site web ou contactez-nous (liste des personnes de contact
ci-dessous).
|
