Credit/source: JUVE
THE Central Staff Committee at the EPO has shared a report about two recent meetings, the latter of which going two weeks back. "Two meetings of the General Consultative Committee (GCC) took place around the turn of the year," it said. Here's the full text of the report, including the two annexes:
Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich,20/02/2023 sc23019cp
Report on the GCC meetings of 16 December 2022 and 8 February 2023
Dear Colleagues,
Two meetings of the General Consultative Committee (GCC) took place around the turn of the year.
Déjà-vu: President lost from sight The President of the Office chaired personally the meeting on 16 December 2022. He had already delegated chairmanship twice to VP 5 (Vice-President DG 5, Legal / International Affairs) in the past. In January 2023, he informed us that he would be delegating it again “until further notice.” Accordingly, VP 5 chaired the meeting on 8 February 2023.
When President Battistelli introduced “Social Democracy” in 2014, he stressed that the President would normally chair the meetings of the GCC as the “highest consultative body” at the EPO. At least that was how he sold it to the Administrative Council1. However, after some time, he obviously lost interest in “consulting” at the highest level with the staff representation and delegated chairmanship to VP 4 until the end of his term of office. We deeply regret that the current President seems to be adopting the practice of the former President.
We also called for a return to normality, where such important meetings should preferably take place in person. In vain: both meetings took place by videoconference.
The meeting on 16 December 2022 In the meeting, we discussed the following two items: ● Circular 356 (Resources and facilities to be granted to the Staff Committee; GCC/DOC 33/2022) - for consultation
The changes discussed in the GCC meeting were limited to provisions necessary to implement ILOAT Judgment No.4550, which ruled that restricting appointments of members of the internal Appeals Committees to elected Staff Committee members was unlawful. The Circular came into force on 1 January 2023. In the meantime, the CSC has appointed four colleagues to the Appeals Committees, so that they can start working again.
_______ 1 See document CA/4/14.
We consider that the circular plays an important role in making the work on the staff committee more attractive and effective. In our opinion, many further changes to the framework of “Social Democracy” are necessary and they must be implemented before the election of the next staff committees, who will take place soon, in spring 2023.
We have drafted a (quite positive) opinion on the limited changes, which is annexed to the present report.
● GCC Rules of Procedure (GCC/DOC 34/2022) - for information
The changes proposed by the administration are rather technical and limited in scope. We pleaded in the meeting for more profound changes. The document will be submitted again for consultation in the upcoming GCC meeting of 28 February.
The meeting on 8 February 2023
In the meeting, we discussed the following item:
● Adjustments to the Organisational Structure (GCC/DOC 01/2023) - for information
This item is actually a continuation of the adjustments presented in document GCC/DOC 32/2022, on which we have already written an opinion annexed to our report on the GCC meeting of 22 November 2022.
We have drafted an opinion on the latest changes, which is annexed to the present report.
The Central Staff Committee
Annexes: ● Opinion on GCC/DOC 33/2022 (Circular 356) ● Opinion on GCC/DOC 01/2023 (Adjustments to the Organisational Structure)
Annexes
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 33/2022:
Circular No. 356
Resources and facilities to be granted to the Staff Committee
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the revised Circular No. 356 on the resources and facilities to be granted to the Staff Committee as proposed in GCC/DOC 33/2022. The opinion relates solely to the amendments which concern the regulations on the Appeals Committee and the comments in the introduction. In particular, with regard to Articles 2(2), 3, 4, 6(2), 9, 11 and 13 of Circular No. 356, which were not the subject of the discussions on the Appeals Committee reform, there is a need for further discussion and, in the view of the CSC members of the GCC, a need for further changes.
The CSC members of the GCC appreciate that the meetings of the Joint Working Group Appeals Committee reform took place in an open and constructive atmosphere. Efforts in the social dialog to achieve change in the Appeals Committee go back several years. It is encouraging that discussions have now come to a common conclusion.
The ILO-AT Judgments Nos. 3694, 3785 and recently 4550 emphasised that considering the quasi-judicial functions of the Appeals Committee, its composition is fundamental. The balance sought to be achieved by the composition of this body, which includes members appointed by the Administration and by the CSC, is a fundamental guarantee of its impartiality. The Social Report for the year 2015 (CA/55/16) showed a questionable trend with only 2% of appeals allowed in 2014 and even only 0.5% in 2015.
This is why the CSC has repeatedly called for the Appeals Committee to be made functional again in such a way that staff regain confidence in it. The need to resolve disputes between the Organisation and the employees of the European Patent Office in due time and in a reliable and neutral manner is important. Having legal peace is a tremendous asset.
For the CSC appointees to the Appeals Committee, the CSC members of the GCC hence consider three points essential. Firstly, their protection is necessary so that they can freely express their opinion. Secondly, their career shall not be affected in any way by the activity. Thirdly, they shall have sufficient time resources to form a thoroughly informed opinion on the appeal cases.
The CSC members of the GCC are of the opinion that the above points are reached by the proposed amendments to Articles 6 and 7 of Circular No. 356 and further confirmed in the introduction. Positive note is also taken of the remarks in the introduction that two further items will fall within the remit of the Appeals Committee and its Secretariat: (1) the Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Committee should allow for new CSC appointees to join as observer in cases before participating as a member, and (2) the Appeals Committee should send its planning to the Appeals Committee appointees in advance of each year.
The CSC members of the GCC consider it important that a joint assessment and possible amendment to the newly introduced framework will take place in one year’s time, based on the input of all stakeholders and appreciate that an agreement in this regard could be reached.
Finally, the CSC members of the GCC would like to point to four key elements that characterised the preparatory discussions.
● Meetings took place in an open and constructive atmosphere, in which the social partners were both able to change their original view. ● Reflective thought, rather than haste, characterised the proceedings. The exchange of arguments took place both orally and in writing. ● In addition to their statements and claims, the needs of the social partners were carefully analysed and taken into account. ● The reports of the meetings were neutral and to the facts.
It is the sincere hope of the CSC members of the GCC that under the amended regulations the Appeals Committee will function and take up its duties as soon as the CSC appointees are found. May the spirit of the Joint Working Group Appeals Committee reform also spread to other areas of the social dialogue.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 1/2023:
Adjustments to the Organisational Structure
Introduction
As was the case for previous documents of this kind, also for GCC/DOC 1/2023, the CSC members of the GCC are of the opinion that, in view of the impact of the proposed organisational changes on staff, the document should have been presented to the GCC “for consultation”.
In addition, the CSC members of the GCC make the following comments on the organisational changes as set out in GCC/DOC 1/2023.
General observations
Comments and questions which we raised during the discussion on GCC/DOC 32/2022 in the GCC meeting of 22 November 2022 have not yet been addressed and we are looking forward to a later exchange on those. During the GCC meeting, it was explained that implementing the organisational changes followed a top-down approach, i.e. the senior manager positions are first announced and filled, only then will the teams and units be (re-)organised. For other colleagues, this means that they still have to wait until the final structure of their units is known. This uncertainty creates stress and it is perceived that until the final setup is known, many decisions are put on hold, which paralyses teams in their work.
Within DG 0
PD 0.2 Communication The document sets out that with the reform the management intends to “... dispel the notion of difference in importance between internal and external events, breaks down any perceived silos ...”. The new structure would comprise only two teams “Event management” and “Event planning and implementation”. The fear remains that the new structure would continue to have the same partition under different terms, thus resulting in keeping perceived silos, namely those of the brain and the legs: one team responsible the strategic thinking while the other team for implementation.
PD 0.8 Employment Law and Social Dialogue Advice From one directorate in the recent past, Employment Law has evolved into a principal directorate with two directorates and a further unit, emphasising its importance. Considering that management forecasts that the litigations are going down in numbers and despite the fact that social dialogue was added to the portfolio of this PD, we are not convinced of the “strong business case” for this upgrade. Still we support and further encourage the envisaged shift of focus from litigation to social dialogue. We will monitor whether the new structure can contribute to this shift.
Within DG 1
We appreciate that classification is finally being dealt with at high level and reporting directly to the COO. However, we wonder whether the transfer to DG 5 of the high-level activities in classification such as CPC implementation at national levels, or CPC training (general, advanced and field-
specific) as presented in the document is the right step. We received confirmation in the meeting from both VP 5 and the COO that the collaboration between DG 1 and DG 5 would continue successfully.
Within DG 4
We learnt from the document that external consultants conducted a future readiness study, a copy of which is not available to us. As a result, an additional directorate is now being planned to prioritise the planning and work for other directorates within PD 4.4. VP 4 seems to be convinced that a directorate in charge of financial control (whilst not calling it controlling) is important in view of the huge budget involved in the building projects. She had already installed a similar control layer in BIT. We are of the opinion that independent control of such expenses outside the respective PD and DG would be more adequate. The trend in the past was in fact to reduce units for each area (controlling, training, etc.) for which there are central entities. We propose to strengthen again an internal audit unit.
Within DG5
PD Patent Intelligence As set out in the general observations above, the final organisational changes for the directorates within PD 5.4 are yet to be seen. Many colleagues in current PD 5.4 enjoy to work with colleagues from other directorates and other sites within and outside their PD. Not knowing how their units will be reorganised, who their directors will be, and which transfers will take place between units and directorates, they are kept in an uncertain state that causes stress and unrest. In this context, we appreciate that VP 5 clarified during the meeting that the PD and two of the directors of future PD 5.4 will be based in Vienna. One of the issues the administration still needs to address is the provision of sufficient resources for PD 5.4 to fulfil their current and future tasks at the high quality level which their tasks require.
Final remarks
The conclusions drawn in our earlier opinion on document GCC/DOC 32/2022 remain valid. More particularly, the low staffing levels and the difficulties in coping with the workload in many areas has become apparent in the recent staff survey among staff in all DGs. This is not addressed by the planned reorganisations.
Constant reorganisations should be avoided and phases of consolidation are needed to reduce the stress level for our colleagues. Therefore, a “cautious approach” and proper consultation in advance should be guiding principles.
Furthermore, it appears that the goal of leaner management structures has been strictly pursued in only one DG, namely DG 1, where one single director is now responsible for up to 450 examiners, while in all other DGs many directorates have just a handful of staff. We understand the reasoning that some directors have a more specialised and heterogenous portfolio of responsibilities to manage, but the discrepancy between the directorates in DG 1 and the other DGs is glaring and the situation still seems unbalanced. Some of the core tasks of directors, such as reporting and supervising their staff, become impossible above a certain number of staff. In addition, the message sent to staff in DG 1 is that they do not deserve as much attention as staff in other DGs.
"To those who have spent decades serving this patent office it must be mortifying to see how quickly the employer deteriorates."Based on some of the latest comments that SUEPO highlights with these links, the office is risking complete implosion because since 2010 it wasn't run by suitable people and instead milked to death by special interest groups.
We'll soon show that recruitment of examiners too is in a state of crisis. ⬆