11.17.20

Inside the EPO During Corona: Half a Year Ago EPO Management Was a ‘Superspreader’ of COVID-19 and It Broke the Law Regarding Masks

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related (June): EPO 2020 Vision: Billions for Gambling, No Money for Masks (for Staff’s Safety)

Some droplets

Summary: The EPO ‘droplets’ have been spreading due to misguided, unscientific (some might say anti-scientific) EPO management; staff was pressured to come back to office premises and there were clear labour as well as privacy violations, not just Health and Safety violations

THE management of the EPO belittled the crisis. This is no secret. We still routinely see an unmasked António Campinos sitting next to colleagues. They proudly advertise photos of such violations. But just like Benoît Battistelli, Campinos is exempted from the law. Nobody will be arrested at the EPO, but ‘bad’ judges will be dragged out of their offices if the Office President doesn’t like them. If, for example, they speak out about corruption…

EPO maskThis is no joking matter. We’ve written a great deal about the seriousness of this virus, which is having a ‘second go’ at Europe and is arguably outpacing the so-called ‘First Wave’, in some countries more than in others.

“Nobody will be arrested at the EPO, but ‘bad’ judges will be dragged out of their offices if the Office President doesn’t like them.”This brings us to today’s disclosure of an internal document, composed by actual scientists who actually do work for the Office (not doing Webchats on premises of the Office for lousy, self-promotional photos ops in the EPO’s Web site).

Here is what the Central Staff Committee published just under 6 months ago, noting that “the President announces that in the near future Office occupancy will be capped at some low level (20% to 50%) by massively using teleworking. Beyond possible issues with the Contracting States, this de facto constitute an implicit departure from Article 55a(1) ServRegs providing that employees shall normally perform their work on the Office’s premises. Consultation in the COHSEC and the GCC is a must.”

“In addition,” they noted, “you should be aware that the Office has objectively more interest in pushing you into “voluntary” rather than “mandatory” teleworking because it can more easily shift the responsibility and operational risk onto your shoulders, including the risk and consequences of not reaching set objectives.”

Here is the full publication in HTML form:

Munich 20.05.2020
sc20086cp

Gradual return to EPO buildings

Dear colleagues,

On 11 May 2020 the President made an announcement informing us of a gradual return to EPO buildings. A few days later a further announcement described which concrete measures would be introduced to ensure a safe return.

We have already published a paper (“Working from home in times of Coronavirus”) which explains some basic principles concerning the relationship between an employer and its employees. As the Office appears to be now entering a new phase of working we think it is now time to revisit these principles.

The Office’s premises

Firstly, the Office is not a workplace like any other, be it a private company or even another International Organisation. It has been established within the framework of the EPC to take over from national patent offices the task of granting European patents, i.e. bundles of national patents, for the Contracting States1. To that effect, the states have decided that those tasks should normally be performed by civil servants on the Office’s premises. The introduction of large-scale teleworking would seem to question the validity of this, all the more so if staff are working in locations outside the host countries. In our view, the Contracting States must discuss any fundamental departure from this basic understanding2.

Article 55a(1) ServRegs3 codifies the above and directly regulates your working conditions. Moreover, it is a safe bet that when you took up your official duties you assumed that you would be predominantly working on the Office’s premises.

Now, the President announces that in the near future Office occupancy will be capped at some low level (20% to 50%). This may be justified with duty of care. However, this does not change anything to the fact that you will be instructed to work predominantly at a location other than the Office’s premises. This is a back-door change to your conditions of

_____
1 See e.g. Articles 2 and 4 EPC
2 See Article 33 EPC (and possibly Article 172 EPC)
3 Article 55a(1) ServRegs: “Permanent employees in active employment shall normally perform their work on the Office’s premises.”


employment disguised as a sanitary measure, for which statutory consultation is mandatory4.

To wrap it up, the announced measures de facto constitute an implicit departure from the statutory provision of Article 55a(1) ServRegs. Consultation in the COHSEC and the GCC is a must. Failing this, all negative consequences directly deriving from the changes will be illegal.

We think it is high time now for the President to cease ignoring our repeated requests for involvement and consultation.

“Mandatory” teleworking vs ”voluntary” teleworking

You might have the impression that management has been trying to make you forget that working on Office premises is the default option, for which you do not need any authorisation since the President has never closed them5. Teleworking has been presented as a possibility generously proposed to you on an individual basis. The scheme was probably so widely successful until now for reasons linked to the pandemic surge, e.g. because so many staff members had to stay home to take care of small children or relatives.

The initial attractiveness of the scheme will probably wear out. Staff will feel the need to come more often to the Office and line management will have to make decisions, resorting to issuing “instructions to work from home again” or “strongly urging” their staff to do so.

Until now the Office has consistently blurred the distinction between mandatory and voluntary teleworking, with a clear preference for the latter as it has been announced that “mandatory” teleworking should only apply to three very limited medical indications.

As explained in our first paper, “mandatory” teleworking means that you have been forced, or “strongly urged” to work from home. Because the relationship between the Office and you is based on mutual trust and good faith, you are then expected to take reasonable measures, or make “best efforts”, to try to mitigate the consequences of the order to stay home. Nothing more, nothing less. In particular, the order does not commit you to reaching the objectives set by management.

Conversely, “voluntary” teleworking means that you have still the right to come to the premises. It is convenient for the Office in that it can more easily shift the responsibility and operational risk onto your shoulders, including the risk and consequences of not reaching set objectives. Some directors in DG1 have already instructed their line managers to “hold discussions” with those having a productivity level below that planned

_____
4 See also Article 55a(2) ServRegs: “The President of the Office may, after consulting the relevant joint committee, establish implementing instructions allowing employees to perform their duties at a location other than the Office’s premises.”
5 Of course the President could forbid you to come on its premises, either on an individual basis or on a collective basis. You are then obliged to obey this injunction. In the House Rules: “The right to grant or refuse access to the premises is exercised by the President and those to whom the President has delegated this authority, in particular the site managers and security staff.”


before the pandemic. No doubt that this will also play a role when line management assesses your performance for 2020.

In conclusion, you should be aware that the Office has objectively more interest in pushing you into “voluntary” rather than mandatory teleworking. If you believe that your teleworking is not actually “voluntary”, you must insist on receiving clear written instructions from your line management (e.g. an instruction to work from home or a formal prohibition to access the Office’s premises)6.

Some concrete measures

Most of the announced concrete measures appear reasonable. However, two should be singled out for comment.

- The President has announced that “each staff member is responsible for providing their own mask”. This is petty-minded and illegal, because the employer is legally obliged to provide masks in order to discharge its duty of care. In addition, it also appears reasonable from a hygienic viewpoint to avoid the proliferation in the Office of different masks of uncontrolled provenance and uncertain protective effect. Deciding which type of mask to wear should not be the responsibility of individual staff members.

We therefore recommend that you contact Health & Safety (H&S) to obtain a mask if you need one, as advocated in the announcement. It appears that H&S has been instructed to provide masks only “if you are asked by your line manager to come to work at EPO premises”7. We recall that you are entitled to come to work unless you are on mandatory teleworking.

- The President has announced the completion of a mandatory e-learning course as a precondition for coming to the Office premises. In view of the obvious importance of this module, we suggest that it should be available in all three official languages.

Stay healthy.

The Central Staff Committee

_____
6 See Article 20(2) ServRegs:
7 Management argues that there is no need for the Office to provide masks, as staff is not forced to come back to the Office!

Changing rules requires consultation with and approval from contracting states and definitely from staff that never consented to such changes. But the EPO is like a monarchy and its management is just making up the rules as it goes along, and we know in whose favour.

As the representatives moreover point out, about failure to provide masks to staff: “This is petty-minded and illegal, because the employer is legally obliged to provide masks in order to discharge its duty of care.”

Illegal, but who will hold EPO managers accountable? Nobody.

Nobody was ever held accountable for the EPO’s ‘suicide wave’ and some of those responsible are still in positions of power, still intimidating staff into censorship and self-censorship.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2020/11/17/epo-covid-violations/

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 14/4/2021: EasyOS Dunfell 2.7, Tor Browser 10.5a14

    Links for the day



  2. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 17: Jawohl, Herr Minister!

    A French-German co-production of "Yes, Minister!" starring Raimund Lutz, Heiko Maas and Christoph Ernst. Directed by Benoît Battistell.



  3. Over 1,000 EPO Workers Initiate Legal Challenge Against the EPO's Attack on Salaries (in Defiance of Assurances Made to Workers Who Relocate to Another Country With Whole Families)

    The EPO’s attack on workers and pensioners isn’t going ahead without challenge; while the “Mafia” (what EPO workers call the management) loots the organisation it takes away money from the workers — i.e. from besieged folks who do all the work and face growing workloads during a pandemic



  4. Who is Richard Stallman?

    Reproduced with permission



  5. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, April 13, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, April 13, 2021



  6. Links 13/4/2021: FreeBSD 13.0 Final, Slackware 15.0 GNU/Linux Beta Release and OpenMandriva Lx 4.3 Plans

    Links for the day



  7. IBM Stroking the Masters

    IBM continues to diminish its weakly-supported thesis about the word “Master” being inadequate in all contexts and IBM’s front group, the Linux Foundation, has just promoted more of that same self-serving agenda in the corporate media (screenshot below from 5 minutes ago)



  8. The 'Stallman Support' Web Site and How You Can Support Truth, Not Just Software Freedom

    The Stallman Support Dot Org Web site (stallmansupport.org, "In Support of Richard Stallman“), endorsed by Stallman himself, sets the record straight while the corporate media keeps peddling lies and distortions



  9. An Examination of Correspondence Between the Tweedledum-Tweedledee Duo, Lutz and Ernst

    A quick look at the letters and E-mails sent back and forth from the current VP5 and former VP5 of the EPO, Europe’s second-largest institution that the German government has let exist outside the rule/reach of any law



  10. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 16: An Inimitable Duo

    How the efforts to reform the EPO's data protection framework were derailed by the actions of Lutz and Ernst



  11. How the GNU Operating System Really Started (Almost a Decade Before Linux Came Out)

    Later this year Linux turns 30, but Linux is just a component added to the GNU Operating System, developed a very long time earlier based on the design of UNIX (the mainstream media likes to distort that part of history); here’s the creator of the GNU Operating System, telling me his story here in the United Kingdom (we did many clips like these and this one seems very timely)



  12. Richard Stallman: The Other Things I Have to Say I Put on Stallman.org... Reject the Idea That You Have to Accept Something Like Facebook

    Transcript below



  13. An Ode to Dr. Ernst

    THE BUDGET is right...



  14. During Pandemic, With Rising Inflation, Corrupt EPO Management With Its 'Shadow Budget' Cracks Down on Education and Childcare Allowance

    While hoarding and misusing money (by basically granting lots of patents that ought not be granted) the management of the EPO hides it aside, then proceeds to crushing salaries and benefits of staff, even pensioners



  15. IRC Proceedings: Monday, April 12, 2021

    IRC logs for Monday, April 12, 2021



  16. In Support of Richard Stallman Normalizing Truth, Reason, Dialogue: Introduction

    Reproduced with permission.



  17. Lunduke: Stallman & The FSF Respond To The Mob!

    A video response in support of RMS



  18. Links 12/4/2021: RSS Guard 3.9.2 and IBM-Funded Hacks Keep Attacking RMS

    Links for the day



  19. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 15: Different Strokes for Different Folks

    Dr. Ernst and Raimund Lutz colluded to protect EPO management from a much-needed investigation; Ernst has since then been rewarded with a do-nothing job by António Campinos



  20. EPO President Campinos Lying to JURI

    Benjamin Henrion recorded today's hearing and uploaded it. “Campinos,” according to him, claims that (to paraphrase) “London [is] irrelevant to get UPCA running” (that’s very obviously a lie), so what we have here is António Campinos lying on behalf of the entire EPO, just as Benoît Battistelli did. Campinos has decided to “have fun,” we’ve been told, speaking of UPCA “upper law” (which is meaningless junk) at around 51:00. He clearly didn’t come prepared and he mumbles a lot. What awful leadership for what was supposed to be the best of Europe’s science…



  21. Supporting RMS With a Meme!

    As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.



  22. If You Want to Support a Real Community...

    We’ve just mentioned the fake 'community' of openSUSE and now it’s time to examine what Fedora has truly become under IBM



  23. OpenSUSE Hates Your Freedom, But It Loves the Proprietary Software Reseller That Is the True 'Master' of OpenSUSE

    OpenSUSE is inclusive of Microsoft and other companies that attack human rights and [cref 141916 enable nationalists]; but apparently what bothers OpenSUSE very, very much is the people who started the operating system SUSE is selling



  24. Links 12/4/2021: Lagrange 1.3.2, Linux 5.12 RC7

    Links for the day



  25. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, April 11, 2021

    IRC logs for Sunday, April 11, 2021



  26. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 14: The Notorious Revolving Door

    The Benoît Battistelli-António Campinos shuffle left some people in the EPO’s upper management better off; they’re being rewarded for complicity, so there’s no incentive to do the right thing but to do the wrong thing



  27. Links 11/4/2021: GnuPG 2.3.0, Linux 5.13 Additions

    Links for the day



  28. All EPO Articles Are Available Over Gemini Protocol

    For lighter and more privacy-preserving access to Techrights use the Gemini capsule instead of the Web site



  29. Judge and JURI

    The Committee on Legal Affairs, a.k.a JURI, meets the EPO tomorrow (in 24 hours); will abuses by António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli be brought up?



  30. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 13: The Failed Promise of a “Good Governance” Guru…

    Before becoming an absent-minded Vice-President of António Campinos Christoph Ernst was posing as the very opposite of what he would become


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts