EPO Management Fails to Deny That the Office is Discriminating Against Women
Europe's second-largest institution isn't just exceedingly corrupt but also immoral
The EPO's Central Staff Committee has contacted the management, asking why women were so poorly rewarded compared to male peers. Here's a message sent over a month ago: (sent to António Campinos)
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyCentral Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler PersonalausschussTel. +49 -89- 2399 - 2120
+49 -170- 2251 - 7271centralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc25014cl
Date: 11.02.2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
M. António Campinos
President of the EPOISAR – R.1081
OPEN LETTER: Rewards for female staff members
Dear Mr. Campinos,
Throughout your entire mandate you have unfailingly rewarded our female staff at a lower rate than average. Can you tell us why?
Yours sincerely,
The Central Staff Committee
"We have received a reply from VP4 in reply to our earlier letter on the rate of reward of female staff members," writes the Central Staff Committee this week (communication regarding an "[o]pen letter in reply to VP4 and the president").
Campinos let his friend (nepotism; not qualified but a friend, hence hired) reply to this, not just because she's a female colleague but a loyalist of his:
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyDG 4 Corporate Services
Nellie Simon
Vice-PresidentTel +49 (0)89 2399 - 4000
nsimon@epo.orgDate: 06.03.2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Mr Derek Kelly
Chair of the Central Staff CommitteeVia email only: centralstcom@epo.org Dear Chair, dear Derek,
Reference is made to your letter of 11.02.2025 regarding the distribution of rewards among female staff.
The Office is committed to a merit-based approach, with rewards distributed equitably and based on performance, contributions and skills. To that end, the reward allocation process undergoes multiple layers of assessment, calibrations and reviews to ensure consistency and fairness across all staff categories.
To ensure transparency, the Office has consistently provided detailed statistics on rewards distribution. The overall rewards outcome for 2024 showed the continued reduction in difference in reward allocation by gender, with the variation currently at its lowest level and nearing completely equal — 0.9%, down from 7.8% in 2018. The full statistical overview was made available to all staff on the intranet following the conclusion of the April 2024 reward round.
Looking ahead, the Office will continue to prioritise gender equality, as an important part of the EPO employment framework. This commitment remains an integral part of our approach to fostering a fair and inclusive workplace and ensuring equal opportunities for career advancement.
Yours sincerely,
Nellie Simon
Vice-President DG 4
Corporate Services
They didn't fall for this shallow reply, which took EPO almost a whole month to issue. (4 paragraphs in 4 weeks! What are these people doing all day?)
"In this open letter," the Central Staff Committee says, "we reply to the points addressed by VP4, provide the missing details on the rewards distribution to give a fuller picture, and pose some questions to continue the discussion."
They also respond to António, as this way he cannot just duck and hide behind his loyalist Nellie, who keeps shaming staff, urging them to work unreasonable (and illegal) hours. The pinkwashing does not annul illegal activities.
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyCentral Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler PersonalausschussTel. +49 -89- 2399 - 2120
+49 -170- 2251 - 7271centralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc25021cl
Date: 21.03.2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Mr. António Campinos
President of the EPOMs. Nellie Simon
Vice-President DG 4OPEN LETTER
Rewards for female staff members – in detail
Dear Ms. Simon, Mr. Campinos,
Reference is made to your reply letter of 06.03.2025, in response to our letter of 11.02.2025 regarding the distribution of rewards among female staff.
We appreciate your vow to close the gender gap in rewards, and offer our commitment to keep the topic on the table and continue the analysis of the annually provided rewards statistics. Although not complete in scope, the statistics have been valuable in allowing some of the discrepancies between rewarding of women and men to be quantified. Indeed, the difference in rate of reward when any pensionable reward is considered has decreased significantly. This is unfortunately at a much slower pace than desirable, but we confirm the drop in difference from the lamentable 7.8% (13.3% less for women when normalised to the men) in 2018 to 0.9% (1.5% normalised) in 2024 as quoted.
However, as the staff representation has often noted, this broad measure of the gender reward gap obscures other issues. “Any pensionable reward” includes single steps, double steps, and promotions, for which we also have the separate data. These can be seen below, alongside the award of non- pensionable rewards, aka bonuses.
For single steps (below left), the last 5 years have shown a convincing equality, with a small difference and a switching between the highest rewarded of men and women. This shows that the line-managers and directors are on the right track, and the current practise should be maintained. In the case of double steps (below right), there remains a significant gap, but at least a constant trend of reduction in the gap. We hope this will continue to close, and more quickly than in the past. Making the line-managers aware of this difference and giving guidance may assist in closing the gap.
For promotions (below left), there has been a significant gap over the years, until 2023 when the difference saw a minimum. Unfortunately, this progress was lost last year when the gap disappointingly opened again. Regarding the award of bonuses (bottom right), the gap is concerningly not showing any signs of progress, and the difference as recently as April 2024 was almost as big as the difference in 2016 (women approx. 20% less likely than men to receive a bonus). We ask why is it that women are considered to be equally deserving as men to be rewarded with a single step, but much less deserving of a double step, promotion, or bonus?
Looking at these latter three graphs every year, where the men are perpetually rewarded more than the women, has a tendency to desensitise, and the likelihood to settle for a goal of just achieving a smaller gap than before becomes higher. But we ask you to be more ambitious in your targets and to finally eliminate this discrimination completely.
Returning to your letter, we acknowledge your stated commitment to prioritising gender equality in the future, and we aim at facilitating that goal. In order to do so, we clearly outline the variables that we believe should be monitored. These are those illustrated in the above graphs, namely; Allocation of single steps, double steps, promotions, and bonuses. In addition, a figure that has so far been missing from any available data is the average cash amount of bonuses for men and women. We think this is also an important aspect to see the whole picture, particularly since it is the allocation of bonuses that currently shows the most discrimination. So we request again that the average reward amounts, separated by gender and job group, are added to the publication of the rewards statistics.
We would like to hear your view on this proposal. Do you agree that these five quantities are the most appropriate to evaluate the progress on gender equality in the rewards? Further, what concrete actions can be taken to assist the line-managers in fulfilling the goal of gender equality?
We look forward to the publication of the statistics of the outcome of this year’s reward exercises, and you can rely on us to take an objective, quantified, and detailed look at the results.
Sincerely yours
Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
The Central Staff Committee needs to keep chasing this. It's the only way to hold these people accountable for illegal policies and illegal kangaroo courts. The EU's reputation and thus its viability depends on tackling EPO corruption. Failing to do so means the chicken will come home to roost. █