Editorial: 4 years of pay freeze, refusal to engage in a social dialogue, implementation of poor staff policies, enough is enough!

The College must finally take political action in favour of its staff!
The unions must organise the mass mobilisation of staff!

The Commission has recently failed in its legal action instituted with regard to the 2011 adjustment of salaries. The Court also refused the 2012 action (see our information and analysis below).

It has still not succeeded in obtaining reimbursement of the overpayment in respect of the pension contributions for 2011. It would appear that it has obtained reimbursement of the overpayment in respect of the pension contributions for 2012, but not before January 2014 “by level” and February 2014 “as a group” (see also below).

The Commission has refused to negotiate payment of what was due to us during the negotiations on the reform of the Staff Regulations, believing that this was a given.

Yet there were numerous opportunities in the framework of the negotiation of the Staff Regulations, which saw the College continuously beating a retreat, without obtaining either payment of the salary adjustments or reimbursement of the overpayment in respect of the 2011 and 2012 pension contributions. The shortfall for staff is considerable: more than 150% of a monthly salary. On the other hand, the Commission does not hesitate to recover, without any consultation, days of strike by staff in response to a labour dispute for which it must shoulder a large part of the responsibility.

As a result, if the College does not act politically, our salaries will have been frozen for 4 years: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 – whereas we now pay a solidarity contribution, with effect from January 2014, which is more than 50% higher than that paid previously, on average, from 2004 to 2012.

As if that was not enough, the College keeps coming up with more bad news for staff. Discussions of the following issues have either stalled or been postponed indefinitely:

·         internal competition for CAs from 2014,

·         second and third internal reclassification competition for post 2004 colleagues, as requested at the social dialogue meetings,

·         full use of the possibilities offered by the certification procedure, enabling the transition from AST to AD,

·         utilisation, for certain grades, of all budget resources and the guarantees of the Staff Regulations for promotions, on a five-yearly basis, in accordance with the Court judgment of 5 November,

·         transparent and meritocratic procedure for the accession to end of career AT and AD,

·         full use, in the future, of the budget resources – already very limited – for end of career situations,

·         developing general implementing principles (GIP) more favourable to staff,

·         day nursery places for the 800 children on waiting lists,

·         increasing the number of nursery nurses and carers in the day nurseries and kindergartens ("after school childcare") in response to the transition to the 40 hour week,

·         offering places in the European schools for half of the children of colleagues who do not have access to them because of shortages of premises and teachers,

·         providing suitable and sufficient premises (offices and meeting rooms) for staff,

·         rationalising the geographical installation of services spread over several sites and countries,

·         negotiating restructuring measures – too frequent and always imposed – and mobility – too often forced on staff,

·         implementing a participatory staff management system,

·         defining a stable policy for contract staff,

·         defining a policy for skills management and talent detection,

·         defining a staff motivation policy, other than an administrative and authoritarian approach, etc.

Faced with this deterioration in working conditions, we must mobilise all staff on the basis of clear demands, determined with the staff, with a united front involving all staff categories.

U4U is ready to make this happen in collaboration with all the unions.

Update on the Court of Justice judgment on remuneration

The judgment of 19 November 2013 is a blow for the Commission, the institutions and staff. This judgment could result in EU officials facing a 4 year salary freeze. This means a very significant loss in purchasing power on top of the sacrifices resulting from the reform which will enter into force on 1^st January 2014 (40 hours, AST and AD careers blocked, creation of a new category of secretaries, restrictions on travel expenses, a notable deterioration in conditions in delegations, etc.).

More precisely, the Court has not really ruled on the grounds raised by the Commission, since its rejection of the Commission’s action is founded on procedural considerations.

The Court has explained that the Staff Regulations in force until 31 December 2013 provide for two salary adjustment methods:

·         The normal procedure, defined in article 3 of annex XI. According to the Court, in this case, the Commission submits a proposal, adopted by the Council alone. It is not an ordinary legislative procedure.

·         The second procedure, where economic conditions have deteriorated, is set out in article 10 of annex XI, namely the exception clause. In this case, it is the ordinary legislative procedure, on a co-decision basis (article 294 TFEU).

In case of an economic crisis, it is for the Council alone to request the Commission to submit an adjustment proposal, on the basis of the derogation procedure, in accordance with the exception clause.

According to the Court of Justice, the Commission’s role is to provide objective economic and financial data justifying the activation of the exception clause (Art 10, annex XI). Given article 65 of the Staff Regulations, it is for the Council to decide on the application of the exception clause. Depending on the Council’s decision, the Commission must put forward a proposal.

“…  During this review the Council shall consider whether, as part of economic and social policy of the Union, remuneration should be adjusted. Particular account shall be taken of any increases in salaries in the public service and the needs of recruitment.”

This judgment is a serious attack on the Commission’s competence and its power of initiative in the economic area which is at the very core of its competences.

Consequently, if the Council considers that it must trigger the exception clause, on the basis of data provided by the Commission, the Commission MUST put forward an adjustment proposal within the framework of this clause. This adjustment proposal is adopted by the Council and the Parliament by co-decision.

In this approach, we consider that the Commission retains its right of initiative and in particular the possibility for it to withdraw its proposal, if it is distorted by the legislative authority, in accordance with the Treaty.

What happened with the 2011 adjustment?

In 2011, the Commission assessed the economic situation and adopted its proposal on the basis of article 3 of annex XI. The Council refused to adopt this proposal and referred the matter to the Court, in order to assert its competence to assess the economic situation, to the detriment of the Commission, and to enable it to trigger the exception clause.

Following this judgment, the Commission MUST submit a new proposal, on the basis of article 10 of annex XI, which will be adopted by co-decision.

What about the 2012 adjustment?

It is still in the litigation phase and the Court has neither ruled nor joined the cases, which is considered by the DG HR as an invitation to negotiate a solution.

For this adjustment, the Commission has produced a report on the economic situation and the Council has requested the application of article 10 of annex XI (this is not a decision). The Commission has produced a second report to confirm its position to apply article 3 of annex XI. The Council has not challenged this in a timely manner and, apparently, has not taken a formal decision to request the application of article 10 of annex XI.

Consequently, the Court could declare that Council has failed to act and request it to do so; which it would do immediately by declaring the application of article 10 of annex XI.

In this scenario, the Commission would find itself in a situation identical to that of the 2011 adjustment.

What should the Commission do next?

The Commission must defend staff, respect the law and adhere to the statistics that it produced. It must stick with the principle which underlies the method: maintaining the principle of purchasing power parallelism.

Consequently, the Commission must put forward a new adjustment proposal of 1.7%, in respect of 2011, on the basis of Eurostat’s figures, within the framework of the procedure of article 10 of annex XI.

It is to be noted that the new exception clause of the new Method would not apply to the economic situation in 2011. The Commission must also remind Member States that the consequences of the economic crisis have already had an impact on EU officials, directly via the Method.

On the basis of this proposal, the Parliament and the Council must reach a decision. It is clear that the Commission can always withdraw its proposal if it is distorted in the negotiations with the legislative authority.

We urge the Commission not to put forward a proposal below 1.7% - which may be reduced further by the Council – as some have proposed (moreover, some people have proposed extremely fanciful scenarios, without taking account of the legal foundations). Such a proposal would be a scathing denial of all the statistical work of the Commission’s services and the Method mechanism.

In case the Commission is tempted to bundle 2011 and 2012 together, we also urge it to respect the legal principles and economic calculations.

This judgment has strengthened the position of Member States with regard to the adjustment of the salaries of officials, at the end of this Commission’s mandate and just ahead of difficult parliamentary elections. We urge the members of the College not to sell out the Staff.

Contribution to the EU staff pension scheme: an increasingly complicated situation

Adjustment of the pension contribution for 2011 has resulted in the Commission instituting proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities. In 2011, the College proposed to set the pension contribution rate for 2011 at 11%, versus 11.6% in 2010. The Council seems to be inflexible on this point, since Member States consider that article 83, paragraph 4 does not require them to adjust this contribution annually.

On the other hand, they seem to be willing to adjust the pension contribution for 2012. Within the framework of the five-yearly actuarial evaluation, the Council is required to adjust the contribution rate. In this context, it seems that an agreement has been reached within the Staff Regulations Working Group. This agreement is due to be adopted by the COREPER, as an A point, on 29 November 2013, then by the Council, on 10 December 2013. Under this agreement the pension contribution rate would change from 11.6% to 10.6%, with effect from 1^st July 2012. The contribution rate (10.6%) does not take account of a possible adjustment of salaries for 2012 which would automatically reduce this rate further to 10.4%. If that were to happen, the Commission has undertaken to submit a fresh proposal to the Council to review the pension contribution rate.

As regards 2013, the Commission has proposed to set the pension contribution rate at 10.3%, with effect from 1^st July 2013. However, following the judgment on adjustments, it is not clear, at this stage, whether Member States are ready to adopt this proposal. If an agreement is reached, the new pension contribution rate for 2013 should also be adopted on 10 December 2013 by the Council.

If the Commission were to win its action instituted with regard to the pension contribution for 2011, the rate would then be set at 11%, with effect from 1^st July 2011. As a result of this change the rate for 2012 would be set at 10% instead of 10.6%. On the other hand, the contribution rate for 2013 would not be significantly affected. The Commission should then put forward a fresh proposal to review once again, retroactively, the rates for 2011 and 2012.

Adjustment of the correction coefficients for 2013: state of play?

The Commission has put forward a proposal to adjust the correction coefficients for 2103, regardless of the non-adoption of the 2011 and 2012 proposals. In refusing to adopt the salary adjustments for 2011 and 2012, the Council has refused to adjust the correction coefficients which guarantee purchasing power parity between places of employment, thereby demonstrating once again its purely ideological position with regard to the European public service.

Member States should, in principle, decide at the COREPER of 29 November, as an A point, of the Council of 10 December 2013.

The correction coefficients are defined in the table below for the 26 EU Member States:

Application of the 40 hour week to day nursery staff: what should be done?

With the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, all staff must work 40 hours a week.

This will affect the day nursery staff who will also have to work a 40 hour week instead of 37.5 hours. This does not take account of the educational nature of their work or specific constraints, for example with regard to flexitime (impossible) and holiday periods (almost compulsory). The amount of time they spend in contact with children should therefore not exceed the current level.

At the same time, the inescapable fact is that the current system leaves much to be desired, since the staff-to-child ratio is too low at the beginning and end of the day, in particular from 9:00 to 10:00 and from 16:00 to 17:00. As parents must be present during the "core hours", they are forced to leave their children at the day nursery by 9:15 at the latest and to pick them up at 16:45 (16:15 on Friday) at the earliest. Almost all the children are therefore present from 9:15 to 16:45, whereas only one or two nursery nurses are present in the room.

Moreover, with the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations parents are likely to face difficulties in picking up their children earlier on Friday.

That is why U4U considers with "parent users" and day nursery staff that not only must staff numbers not be cut by 5% – which the unions have obtained – but that, on the contrary, the number of staff, in particular nursing staff, must be increased, as the Commission has done for quite a few other Commission services. In our view this is necessary in order to:

·         increase the presence of nursing staff at the beginning and end of the day;

·         extend the closing time of day nurseries to 18:30 at the latest;

·         extend the closing time of day nurseries on Friday to 18:00 at the latest;

·         facilitate access to day nurseries from the Commission’s buildings (free, frequent public transport at day nursery opening and closing times, bicycles available to parents in the day nursery building, more parking space, etc.).

The Commission must stop the deterioration of its social services as this has a direct impact on the working conditions of staff. It must consider the “social” side as a positive priority.

Lastly, the Commission must take the necessary steps to reduce day nursery waiting lists.

Luxembourg staff elections: the results

These elections have now been concluded. Votes were cast as follows (expressed as percentages):

These are the key "lessons” learnt:

·         USL (list 3) is still in first place, but its score, both in terms of its percentage share and number of seats has fallen very sharply. It has obtained 13 out of 20 seats because of an ultra-majority electoral system: with the Brussels voting system it would have obtained 7 to 8 seats;

·         Solidarité Européenne (list 4) with its allies (R&D, Conf SFE, "defectors" from USL, SID) appears to have gained ground very slightly, but in reality it has lost ground to its allies (R&D). Its main leaders were beaten. It has lost a seat to R&D. SID which had participated in the last elections in 2010 with U4U and FFPE (Vote the Change) has lost its only elected representative and ultimately simply serves as a foil to the other unions present on this list. All in all, the challenge of offering an alternative to USL has failed for the second time;

·         the PLUS list (composed of ADL, TAO and SE) has disappeared from the picture. It is no longer considered as representative at the local level, whereas in 2010 ADL was alone on the list. Its “remains” are shared by the other lists. This result should be a cause for concern for the leaders of these organisations, after 20 years of union activity;

·         the main change concerns list 2 presented for the first time by G-2004 which, although incomplete, obtained a score of 19%, confirming the score achieved in Brussels in 2012 by the same organisation. G-2004 has clearly succeeded in capitalising on staff dissatisfaction with a situation that has lasted 10 years and for which staff hold the other trade union organisations responsible, albeit to differing degrees;

·         U4U and FFPE, partners in "Vote the change", obtained 15% of votes, i.e. slightly less than their score last time, but without SID. They also have one elected representative. With a fairer voting system, the list would have had one or two elected representatives. U4U and FFPE (vote the change) have therefore gained ground. If SID had not left Vote the Change it would have had one elected representative and our list would have been in third or even second place. This is worth reflecting on for the next election!

The case for participatory human resources management

At a time when restructuring, relocation and staff management are organised with minimal staff involvement, U4U once again calls for participatory change management method to be promoted and widely adopted.

For the European institutions, it is essential in these times of uncertainty, constant restructuring and staff reductions, to ensure that all staff are meaningfully and effectively involved in the organisational structures and activities which are at the heart of their everyday working lives. This is all the more important as our public service benefits from the contribution and commitment of colleagues who, at every level, are very qualified and often over-qualified for the positions that they fill.

Participatory management is a team coordination method which inspires the participation and contribution of everyone in order to move the organisation forward. It relies on awareness of the expectations and aspirations of staff. Participatory management consists therefore in respecting above all the human dimension of the organisation. It advocates communication, dialogue and the delegation of power. It leads to a true group culture based on two key values: mutual respect and equality among all staff.

This involvement is far more than a simple motivation to accomplish certain tasks. It marks the degree of intellectual and emotional commitment of staff to their institution, DG, unit or team and its goals, vision, values and objectives.

The essence of involvement is to create an environment is which everyone is free and individuals can contribute jointly their energy, efforts and abilities to the performance of the entity as a whole, and not only in the framework of their own individual role.

Staff involvement becomes a priority in a context where human resources are limited and the organisation’s performance demands are increasingly challenging. A high degree of staff involvement is a key factor in helping the organisation to meet such challenges.

In participatory management, the watchwords are accountability, participation, commitment, autonomy, empowerment and communication.

Five major principles interact in this approach:

1.      the mobilisation of staff, by attitudes and by structures

2.      an active staff development policy

3.      the delegation of power: trust, sharing responsibilities

4.      resolving problems at the level at which they exist

5.      controls: room for error, self-monitoring, etc.

The participatory management method satisfies both management and individuals, by taking account of everyone’s needs.

First, participatory management satisfies the fundamental needs of team members, that is to say the need for security, social ties, self-esteem and self-fulfilment. It makes the professional environment more human and gives all staff greater autonomy as well as the right to have their voice heard. Thus, participatory management contributes individual recognition. In addition, this management style is tailored to equal opportunities and respect for each individual.

The involvement of all the partners brings about a significant change in human factors (consideration, fulfilment, involvement, atmosphere, etc.) and therefore in working life. It results in far greater mobilisation and motivation, while boosting team dynamics and spirit.

Implementation of participatory management changes everyday relationships between the different participants in that they all find their place in a cooperative mode. The strategic choices and necessary developments take account of realities and not simply the reports “ground out” by management. These choices are thus more realistic. This enhanced performance and greater efficiency enables the structure to adapt rapidly, improve its reactivity to the context, master the steering of actions and implement decisions effectively. Communication is both vertical and horizontal and information circulates freely.

The group is empowered and accountable, decisions are adopted by consensus and objectives are set by the group itself. The whole of the structure is empowered and made more accountable by the management of human competences and potential, delegation, the need to communicate, etc. It then becomes a "learning structure" in the interests of everyone.

Participatory management therefore facilitates a merger of different viewpoints with a view to finding optimal solutions to the problems encountered. This generates greater involvement, reduces conflicts, ensures closer integration within the organisation and boosts the effectiveness of teams.

Ultimately, the staff involved in a participatory change management process influence, inspire and guide the steps of the others. For an involvement process to be effective, all that is needed is a hierarchy which takes the initiative and leads by example.

It is not simply a matter of a personal accomplishment, but rather of collective accomplishment within the framework of a joint project. It is necessary therefore, while taking account of the individual, to shift to collective action. The theory of participatory management is simple, but the ambition must now be to implement it within the institution.

It is therefore for managers at all levels to promote and enhance the involvement of staff via the implementation of participatory change management methods. U4U calls on the Commission to put an end to the top-down, pyramidal and quasi-military culture in order to release the energies of staff and break with the lack of recognition and frustration created by the existing culture.

Petition of Contract Agents

At the elections in Luxembourg, U4U and FFPE adopted a clear position in support of the petition of contract agents.

Contract agents have obtained, thanks to their mobilisation (general assemblies, rallies and petitions) and support of the unions, an agreement to take into account, in the new Staff Regulations, part of their main claims as well as transitional measures.

The Commission, like the other institutions, must now implement, in its interest, a new career policy for non-statutory staff.

Strong mobilisation is the only way for staff to obtain the concrete implementation of promises. That is why we support this petition to call for immediate measures:

·         arrange for CAs who have at least 3 years of seniority an internal competition during the first half of 2014;

·         revise the rule against accumulating 6 years;

·         re-hire, as promised, contract workers who are currently unemployed but who have passed a demanding entrance selection procedure (CAST), instead of hiring people who have not successfully passed a selection procedure based on their knowledge and professional skills;

·         organise mobility for CAs between the Commission and the various institutions, agencies, offices and delegations in order to maintain employment;

·         publish all open posts by all institutions, agencies, offices and delegations;

·         define a new contract-staff policy covering all aspects of the careers of such staff.

Read and sign the petition: http://www.collectifdescontractuels.eu/petition201311.htm

Appeal to staff - U4U to increase its team!

To respond to the never-ending attacks on the European public service, U4U must at all costs increase its team. We are a union whose strength lies in our ability to put forward concrete proposals and voice effectively staff concerns. We are also fighters, committed to staff unity.

One of our strengths comes from our close relationship with staff. U4U is the only union which has official contact persons in the DGs and buildings and which regularly organises workplace meetings. Our list of contact persons is already impressive (see below), but it is incomplete!

That is why we are looking for people who are willing to participate and act as our correspondents in DGs, Agencies and the workplace. This responsibility does not involve a heavy workload but implies rather a wish to contribute to the development of our policies. If you are interested, please contact Vlassios Sfyroeras for more information. We need you, so do not hesitate!

Moreover, our union has always kept its membership dues low in order not to discriminate against anyone and to enable all staff, irrespective of their status, to have access to efficient and modern trade union representation.

We intend to launch a series of legal challenges against the new Staff Regulations of 2014 and their application. Access to European justice is far from free, especially if we want to build a case that has some chance of succeeding. That involves significant financial risks. That is why we need your financial support. Even if you do not want to become a union member, help us to defend your interests and challenge Staff Regulations which will have a serious adverse effect on us.

To help us in our action, please pay a contribution to U4U’s account as follows:

Account : U4U
BNP Paribas Fortis (Schumann branch)
IBAN : BE39 0016 3506 3019
BIC : GEBABEBB

Oui, j'adhère !                   Yes, I join !
 

éditeur responsable: Georges Vlandas
responsable de la rédaction : Vlassios Sfyroeras

équipe de rédaction : Paul Clairet, Fabrice Andreone, Sylvie Vlandas,  Tomas Garcia Azcarate, Kim Slama, Gérard Hanney, Sazan Pakalin, Agim Islamaj, Yves Dumont, J.-P. Soyer

.

Have your say Votre opinion Our web site Contact us Meet us on Facebook Unsubscribe