Summary: A look at a letter sent prior to a previous meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO, highlighting the role played by FFPE-EPO in the crushing of SUEPO at the hands of Team Battistelli

It has been absolutely no secret that Battistelli uses a classic union-busting tactic ("good union, bad union") in an effort to crush the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO). We wrote about this many times before, including in the following articles:

1. In the EPO's Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
2. Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as 'Yellow Union' Against SUEPO
3. “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
4. Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli's Circle
5. The EPO's Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
6. Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
7. Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
8. FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
9. Their Masters' Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
10. Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE's Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
11. On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives 'Gifts'
12. Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli's Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO
13. In Battistelli's Mini Union (Minion) It Takes Less Than 10 Votes to 'Win' an Election
14. FFPE-EPO Going Ad Hominem Against FICSA, Brings Nationality Into It
15. High on EPO: Battistelli's 'Social Conference' Nonsense is Intended to Help Suppress Debate About His Abuses Against Staff and Union-Busting Activities

This makes one wonder who's poking fun (or flinging hearsay) at Mr. Prunier -- and by extension at SUEPO -- right now. Who has something to gain from it, under the pretenses that SUEPO is a 'naughty' union that even harms the CSC? This morning we wrote about what actually happened because there are some evil tongues which engage in union-shaming (shaming SUEPO anonymously) and it's hard to view those as innocent. As one comment put it today:

You may indeed be correct about the correctness of the result of the disciplinary procedure. Or you may not. We cannot know and, according to the rules, shouldn't know in order to protect, in particular, the perceived victim. That is, however, not the issue. As the delegations to the AC have already pointed out, justice must be seen to be done. Procedural violations and/or lack of due process cannot be written off because the final decision was 'right' (if it was...). In the current case the guilty man still cannot reveal his crime or his defence because the system won't allow it. Meanwhile the judge can make statements about it which cannot be challenged publicly by the guilty party. A man loses his employment and future employment must be significantly limited given his dismissal. And yet he is not allowed to publicly defend himself?? I would be interested to hear whether you think the procedure and system in place is suitable. That is the question being raised here. The judgement on Laurent must wait for a fair system. I note in passing that you are revealing facts of the case, whether known to you privately or based on the president's communication to staff. In either case, you appear to be stating more than Laurent can. Doesn't it worry you that tomorrow there may be a knock on your door from the investigation unit?

Here is a familiar, legitimate point about the demand for harassment of staff, especially now that Battistelli made it a standard unit like a private police of his:

This year again approx. 50 warning letters will be issued in DG1, making sure the HR Conflict Resolution department has enough clientele for the coming year. A “Danse Obscure” all over again summoning all Staff Representatives to dance along into EPO’s obscure misery, affecting the AC, BoA, President, Management and staff. Strangely enough it unites us all!

Another person correctly points out that "SUEPO represents more than half of the EPO workstaff." Here is the full comment:

SUEPO represents more than half of the EPO workstaff. Staff Representatives are therefore representing a majority. Also, the union cannot send mails to all staff members anymore. That actually was the best thing anyone in the EPO ever did for the union, as man union-template appeals have been filed by jon-members, who do jot have access to the appeal-templates anymore, and therefore finally joined the EPI.... Also, I've never heard of non-SUEPO members having been turned down by Staff Representatives. Just like Anon E. Mouse I do not even know anybody having been asked if they're members of SUEPO when seeking help from Staff Representatives.

Last thing to comment on your post: the "staff representatives" in the Disciplinary Committee (non capital letters hee, as SR does not appoint Staff Representatives to the disciplinary committe anymore, but BB appoints "staff representatives" the administration "selects"). The SR ones resigned after ALL of them have been downgraded and/or warned for not having proposed harsh sanctions in previous procedures. The new "staff representatives" have even less protection than elected Staff Representatives (less visibility), and are therefore under immense pressure by the head of personal department. ILOAT already was negative about the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee.... Also, do not trust them to be "your" "staff representatives".

Please read the communique again, more carefully. There is a lot between the lines which looks absolutely bad to anyone above "director level". Alas, I see the management style trickling down to directors already, destroying the atmosphere. Now the EPO administration pushes for the possibilities that the first or chair can sign for the second member.... Which DG3 (now BoA) considers to be a procedural violation. Fun times.

(Q: the EPC (Article 10(3) EPC) provides that the president shall be assisted by a number of Vice-Presidents. How does a "President of the Boards of Appeal" fit this paragraph of Article 10 EPC?)

ILOAT is mentioned above and this is both noteworthy and timely. "Four judgments will be announced in public on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 at 3pm at the ILO," ILO has just said. We'll keep an eye on those and report when they come out.

When I first saw the union-shaming comment I jokingly said (in social media sites) that maybe it was FFPE-EPO that's behind it. My guess might actually have some merit to it, despite being a joke.

"The following letter," it's explained, "has been sent to the delegations of the Administrative Council on 9 June 2016 in order to assist them with the preparation of the Council meeting in June." A copy was sent to Battistelli as well (see last page, page 7), so this wasn't done behind his back, so to speak.

The full letter [PDF] says that "the President continues to deal exclusively with FFPE-EPO, a tiny union that counts 76 members in The Hague and no section in other places of employment. In their recent elections, 31 members voted. The new Chairman has received 9 (nine) votes. FFPE-EPO is systematically called to participate in working groups, including matters affecting places of employment where they have no section. The Office is misleadingly presenting this as a major success in “social dialogue”."

We must remember that Battistelli uses these nefarious tactics to pretend that there is "social" something (dialogue, study, conference, workshop etc.) while in reality he's 100% antisocial and he attacks the real staff representatives -- not those who are his yes men and chinchillas.

Is the Board (or the Council) wise enough to figure out the tricks Battistelli tries to pull on them?

Posted today in a separate (much older) thread is the following comment:

Board 28 meets this week. Any agenda?

Boards of Appeal Committee meets for the first time on 28.11? Anyone know if they are discussing Haar? Or the disciplinary case?? Is the first a fait accompli and the second perhaps another chance to re-open matters?

Leaked material (like the agenda) would be very much helpful to us. Anyone with access to it, please consider getting in touch with us. It's safe (we have a perfect record guarding sources). ⬆