EPO Staff Mocks the Management's 'Diversity and Inclusion' Platitudes Amid Serious Discrimination "That Must End Now"
LESS than 3 months ago the Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO told staff:
Dear colleagues,We met the administration twice in 2021 and 2022 to discuss the issues of Job Groups (JG) 5&6. Unfortunately, we have not been able to resume the exchange further as the administration kept postponing and cancelling all planned meetings.
The latest unequal treatment of Formalities Officers Team Managers (FO TMs) is for us a new reason to request that meetings within the work-frame of the Working Group JG5&6 are resumed.
Please read here about the lack of recognition of FO TMs.
This matter goes several years back [1, 2] and isn't being resolved. Today we put in the public domain the latest letter on this matter:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich, 29/09/2023
SC23121cpJob Group 6:
Discrimination that must end nowWe met the administration twice in 2021 and 2022 but haven’t been able to resume the exchange further as the administration kept postponing and canceling all planned meetings.
The latest unequal treatment of FO TMs is for us a new reason to request that meetings within the work-frame of WG JG 5&6 are resumed.
JG 6 Formalities Officer Team Managers (FO TMs): a solid example of discrimination
Without any obvious reason, FO TMs have been divided into two categories: the ones nominated before and the others after the 2018 reorganization.
The first category (pre-2018) of FO TMs is in job group 5 having an ad persona team manager’s status within Job Group 5 (JG 5). The second category (post-2018) remain in JG 6 on a 3- years renewable term, no proper TM job profile but with a functional allowance.
This bizarre situation was already pointed out by the CSC (Central Staff Committee) in an open letter to VP1 after the staff representation had held several meetings with FO TMs.
Functional allowance: pushing the divisive exercise to the next level
The unfair treatment that FO TMs already suffer from recently reached a new high. In the DG 1 management meeting of 5 July 2023, they learned that, unlike the examiner’s TMs, they would not benefit from the doubling of their functional allowance.
FO TMs and examiner TMs have comparable numbers of staff members in their teams and the same portfolio of management activities. The reasons for such a one-sided decision are unknown. Additionally, 70% of FO TMs being women, we identify here a further aspect of the gender pay gap which the CSC has repeatedly denounced. The decision not to double the functional allowance is a further marker that corroborates the lack of recognition and respect against women.
Lack of recognition
FO TMs in JG 6 carry out to a large extent the same tasks as any other TM, only, without a proper job description. Now, adding insult to injury, they aren’t eligible for the double functional allowance that examiner’s TMs will receive.
Since the integration of Patent Administration into DG1 back in 2018, all the presently 28 FO TMs of JG 6 repeatedly requested to be given a proper TM job profile.
The letter renewing their term confirms the following: “it has been decided to extend (the) temporary appointment as FO Team Manager”; however, on page 21 of the social report 2022 the table , “Job groups and corresponding career path and grades” mentions that the managerial career path does not apply to JG 6 staff, this way officializing the lack of respect, and recognition, and the discrimination.
Job group Technical career path Managerial career path Grades / steps JG 1 n.a. Vice-President G16 step 3 – G17 step 3 JG 2 Principal Advisor / Board of Appeal Chair Principal Director G15 step 1 – G16 step 4 JG 3 Senior Expert / Board of Appeal Member Director G13 step 3 – G15 step 4 JG 4 Examiner / Administrator / Lawyer Head of Department / Team Manager G7 step 1 – G13 step 5 JG 5 Expert Head of Section G7 step 1 – G10 step 5 JG 6 Administrative employee n.a. G1 step 1 – G9 step 5 On that same page, a disgraceful addendum reinforces once again the sentiment of denial by naming them “some job group 6 employees who exercise certain managerial functions”.
Ironically, this situation goes against the management’s own communication on careers: “Harmonized job profiles serve as a reference for recruitment, career advancement, performance management and professional development”. The lack of respect and recognition can have far-reaching negative consequences on staff: in this very case, it impacts negatively the FOs career prospects and can cascade down to the teams.
It deteriorates the TM’s engagement and affects their health and well-being.
Lack of recognition at the workplace is widely documented, Work-related stress – low recognition and reward | WorkSafe Victoria is one of the numerous articles on the topic, it underlines the importance to “consider rewards as an expression of appreciation and a way of recognizing individual or group contribution to a job responsibility, task or an organizational goal.”
We urge the senior management to correct this obvious disbalance and unequal treatment of TMs of the lowest Job Group. With regards to the good intentions in their announcements on the Intranet about a modern D&I policy, they should finally start to walk the talk.
President’s explanation for this choice to reward only examiner’s TMs
On 22nd August 2023, the CSC asked the administration why it was decided that only examiner’s TMs would see their functional allowance doubled.
This is what the President replied in a letter addressed to the chairman of the CSC dated 19.09.2023:
“Please note that the amount of a functional allowance depends on the nature and complexity of the tasks of each specific group. As already explained to the Team Managers in Patent Examination, following a review of their function and objectives and in recognition of the growing challenges in their role it was decided to increase their functional allowance to EUR 700. For the above reasons this decision concerns solely Team Managers in Patent Examination.”
This leaves one to think that the JG6 FO TMs are clearly treated like a subcategory of Team Managers. According to management, they do not qualify for a proper career in JG5 and are not considered to have complex enough tasks to be eligible for an extra functional allowance.
The staff committee doesn’t subscribe to this point of view.
It is unclear to us how management can still expect this group of colleagues to maintain a level of motivation and job satisfaction and not fall into disarray.
The necessity to resume discussions within Working Group Job Groups 5&6
At the beginning of the previous mandate, the CSC established a new working group for Job Groups 5&6. Its purpose was to provide better support for colleagues in these job groups and consistently gather relevant feedback to present and discuss with the administration.
With both affected colleagues and staff representation repeatedly bringing attention to the unequal treatment of Job Group 6 TMs, we believe this intolerable situation has persisted for too long. The principle of Diversity and Inclusion is being blatantly disregarded, and the harmonization and proper recognition of the role of FO TM are long overdue.
The unfairness of this situation, along with the numerous other unresolved topics such as understaffing, recruitment, and the future of FOs, necessitate the urgent continuation of discussions within Working Group Job Groups 5&6.
We want to reiterate our unwavering determination in supporting and defending our colleagues in Job Groups 5 and 6. Please continue to share your input with your staff representation.
The Central Staff Committee
Many people in other workplaces may be able to relate. The Central Staff Committee describes a lot of workplace politics, but remember that the EPO isn't some private company that can abuse workers without political oversight. Well, it can, but wasn't supposed to. The EPO is corrupt. █