SUEPO The Hague Sends Open Letter to the EPO's 'F***ing' President (Campinos) About Impending Litigation
"F***ing President" is how António Campinos refers to himself
"The introduction of the Education and Childcare reform," SUEPO (Staff Union of the EPO) in The Hague wrote some days ago to union members, "has led to a proliferation of legal disputes, causing strain on staff as well as on the administrative units treating the cases. Unfortunately, a new round of litigation might be around the corner as the schools are preparing the invoices for the school year 2024/2025. SUEPO The Hague believes that if the current reimbursement practice is not amended, more and more litigation will inevitably arise. The executive committee sent a letter to the President, pointing out a number of possible amendments to the reimbursement practice, which could have a positive impact throughout."
The letter signed by Isabelle Brandt states the following:
INTERNATIONALE GEWERKSCHAFT IM EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTAMT
STAFF UNION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
UNION SYNDICALE DE L'OFFICE EUROPEEN DES BREVETSRijswijk 20.03.2024
su24003hl – 4.2.2/5.2Antonio Campinos
PRESIDENT
European Patent OfficeVia email only
Cc: employment_law_sec@epo.org, socialdialogue@epo.org
Executive Committee
SUEPO The HagueDear Mr President,
We would like to draw your attention to the fact that the introduction of the Education and Childcare reform has led to a proliferation of legal disputes causing strain on staff as well as on the administrative units treating the cases.
Unfortunately, a new round of litigation might be around the corner as the schools are preparing the invoices for the school year 24/25. We are afraid that if the current reimbursement practice is not amended, more and more litigation will inevitably arise. We believe it is in the interest of our organizations to foster a culture of dialogue and consensus wherever possible. We would therefore like to point out a number of feasible amendments to the reimbursement practice which will have a positive impact throughout.
1- Mandatory costs
With the adoption of the new Education and Childcare reform1 the total amount of the school tuition/enrolment fees is not reimbursed, in spite of it being classified as mandatory fees required to attend or enrol the child to the school. This contradicts Circular 411, which precisely describes these kind of costs as being direct and fully refundable according to the adopted ServRegs. Staff is therefore puzzled why certain deductions are being made, in particular in the Hague, thereby worsening an already tense situation.
We have highlighted this oddity several times2 to the Administration, but there still seems to be a misunderstanding on this aspect. The Administration argues that the
__________
1 See CA/D 4/21 and Circular 411 ServRegs
2 A tsunami of legal cases on the horizon, LSCTH, 28.06.2022 ; Education allowance below threshold - Request also ouderbijdrage via the portal, LSCTH, 29.06.2023; Education allowance portal - Instructions - reimbursement tuition fees, LSCTH, 08.06.2023
deducted costs from the tuition fees are linked to extra activities, for instance learning trips, and as such are not reimbursable. We disagree with this interpretation. Notwithstanding that in some cases the nature of the deductions is unclear, learning trips are integral part of the curriculum, and thus of the tuition fees. As a matter of fact, sometimes these learning trips do not even take place and are cancelled by the school for various reasons; e.g. sickness, meteorological conditions etc. Parents have no right to receive a refund if no learning trips eventually take place. It is for these reasons that these expenses are inseparable and embedded in the tuition or enrolment fees of the school.
It is worth noting that the amount of such deductions is in the range of 200 - 1000 Euros per child per year, thus creating meagre savings for the office that are vastly outstripped by the legal costs that they have introduced. Furthermore, as mentioned, the issue seems to be of local nature, penalising again the place of employment most affected by the reform. We believe that the reimbursement of all mandatory tuition/enrolment fees is unmistakably prescribed by the current set of rules, in particular by Article 20 of the transitional measures and by Article 3 of Circular 411.
2- Dutch Schools
Colleagues having their children attending national Dutch schools now face a new change in the reimbursement practice when compared to last year. This year, the reimbursement of the so called “Ouderbijdrage”, which has always been recognised as a direct cost, even under the new framework, has suddenly been revised. Parents are again left with no explanations on this unsupported sudden change in the reimbursement practice. Notably, these types of costs are strictly necessary for the proper running of the Dutch national schools. Schools cannot function without it, parents cannot afford not to pay it without endangering the school finances and community. On this aspect we would like to recall that one of the alleged aims of the reform was to extend benefits to nationals. Ironically the colleagues utilising the national schools are being penalised the most. These fees are often less than 1000 Euros per year, again an amount easily absorbable by the Office finances.
3- Siblings
The latest measure3 of the Office on this topic solved the situation for some families but left behind a handful of colleagues. The logic used to discriminate these few colleagues from receiving the additional benefit, seems cumbersome and illogical. We have, for instance, on one hand staff members eligible for the additional benefits for all of their children and having a salary well above the G10.5 salary threshold and on the other colleagues with a much lower salary being excluded from the additional measure. Again, the cost of including every child in this additional measure is minimal for the Office.
4- European School The Hague (ESH)
The parents at the European school in the Hague are now faced with a cost for the “Lunchtime Supervision” of the primary students during lunchtime. The reform had detailed ESH as a cost free school4. However, the Office had excluded this specific cost from reimbursement. This is at odds with other places of employment as, for instance, precisely this cost is financed (directly or indirectly) to the parents sending their children to the European School in Munich (ESM). The ESH is therefore a
__________
3 Education and childcare reform – Siblings
4 See CA/7/21 (e.g. page 11)
quasi-cost free school for the staff in the Hague. This anomaly should be corrected and the lunchtime supervision costs should therefore be fully refunded.
Conclusion
It is in the interest of all parties to solve these issues once and for all, so that staff can dedicate time to their work without unnecessary extra burden. We also indicate the areas of concern with an aim to relieve the load on the justice system. We therefore request that additional efforts are given to finding an agreeable solution to solve these aspects and restore trust with the staff, in particular in the Hague. We remain available to discuss these matters further.
Sincerely yours,
Isabelle Brandt
On behalf of the Executive Committee of SUEPO The Hague
The litigation seems well overdue as SUEPO repeatedly warned about this. EPO management is simply too vain to listen. It believes it's untouchable. █