EPO Meeting Ran Out of Time to Discuss the Scabs ('Young Professionals')
EPO staff representatives in The Hague meet a member of the 'cocaine cabinet'
Steve Rowan ("Alicante Mafia") recently met the Local Staff Committee The Hague (LSCTH) to discuss various issues ranging from banal to scabs. The report from the LSCTH was presented to staff two weeks later and accompanied by this summary:
Report on meeting with VP1 and his team on 10 September 2026Dear colleagues,
On 10 September 2026, the Local Staff Committee The Hague met with VP1 in his function of Site Manager The Hague together with members of the administration.
The meeting focused on the following six topics:
1. Schools and education
2. Hinge renovation and sports facilities
3. Feedback from the work floor
4. Implementation of the breastfeeding break policy
5. Team managers based at another site
6. Young Professionals programme
The report is quite long and probably needs public scrutiny, as later on at least some of these issues will emerge again: (in one context or another, maybe judicial)
Staff Committee The Hague
Comité du personnel de La Haye
Personalausschuss Den HaagRijswijk, 24 September 2026
sc26024hpLSCTH meets Site Manager VP1
Dear colleagues,
On 10 September 2026, the Local Staff Committee The Hague (LSCTH) met with Steve Rowan (VP1), in his capacity as Site Manager for The Hague, along with members of the administration: Angel Aledo Lopez (Chief Operating Officer), Elodie Bergot (Welfare & Remuneration), F. Zaccà (Operations), Frédéric Brunelle (General Administration), Gema Requena Sempere (People), Konstantinos Kortsaris (President's Office), Maria Arranz Gomez (Social Dialogue Secretariat), Maria Castellanos (Community Relations), Marion Saïeb (Employment Law), Mohammed El Hadouchi (Pension and Remuneration), Sam Conix (Employment Law) and Steffen Peschgens (People Planning and Talent Management).
The meeting focused on the following six issues which were brought forward to VP1 by the LSCTH:
1. Schools and education
2. Hinge renovation and sports facilities
3. Feedback from the work floor
4. Implementation of the breastfeeding break policy
5. Team managers based at another site
6. Young Professionals programme
1. Schools and education
British School in the Netherlands
The LSCTH returned to the consequences of the closure of the British School in the Netherlands (BSN) Leidschenveen campus and the correspondence exchanged since the dedicated meeting on schools. Staff representatives asked for the administration’s position on their latest proposal to preserve the level of financial support currently received by affected families who need to move their children to another school.
The administration maintained that the closure concerned a campus, rather than the BSN as a whole, and did not justify extending the transitional measures under the Education and Childcare Allowance Reform (ECAR). It recalled that these measures had already been extensive, including provisions for siblings, and stated that a change of school would bring the child under the ordinary education allowance ceilings. In its view, the purpose of the transitional measures was to protect continuity of education; choosing another education system would fall outside that purpose.
The LSCTH clarified that its latest proposal was to maintain the existing level of support under the transitional measures, with parents meeting any additional cost themselves. Staff representatives argued that this would be financially neutral for the Office and would assist families facing practical difficulties, for example where siblings would otherwise attend several campuses. They referred to Article 17(3) of CA/D 4/21 as a possible basis for presidential action to ease the transition to the new regime and asked that the proposal be put to the President. VP1 confirmed that the latest letter would receive a written reply. No change in the administration’s position was announced during the meeting.
The LSCTH also conveyed recent feedback from affected parents, who still lacked clear information about the transfer to the other campus and the proposed transport arrangements. A new Parent Forum had been established, with its second meeting scheduled for 14 September. While welcoming this development, staff representatives questioned whether it would enable genuine consultation and allow parents to raise concerns. They asked the Office to encourage further parent meetings, clearer communication and a concrete timetable so that families could plan ahead.
The administration replied that there had been limited progress during the school holidays, but that contacts were now resuming. It undertook to continue following up with the BSN and to press for transparent information to parents, while emphasising that the school’s consultation arrangements remained an internal governance matter. VP1 identified improved communication from the BSN as one of the points requiring follow-up.
European School The Hague
The LSCTH reported continuing parental concerns at the European School The Hague (ESH) about mother tongue teaching, class size and admission policies, merged classes, and the quality of consultation with the Primary Participation Council (PPC). Following the rejection of the parents’ complaint about the mother tongue timetable, mother tongue teaching is now concentrated on three days per week. Staff representatives asked the Office to seek clarification on the promised evaluation, including what would be assessed, the criteria used and when parents would receive the results. They also requested more effective consultation on changes affecting the school.
The administration described the mother tongue change as an organisational adjustment which did not reduce the provision of language tuition. It stated that the matter had been submitted to the Participation Council for information, rather than advice or consultation. It reaffirmed the importance of mother tongue teaching for the attractiveness of the European School and undertook to monitor the changes and raise both the evaluation and consultation concerns in the school’s advisory board. It also recalled that the school must comply with the applicable national rules on participation.
The LSCTH further asked whether the School Liaison Officer (SLO) could have access to the relevant financial and legal documentation, audit reports and accreditation material, given the EPO’s involvement in the European Schools system. The administration replied that the EPO representative on the Board of Governors already had access to information and forwarded material concerning ESH to the SLO and the other organisations on the advisory board. However, it stressed that the Office’s roles in The Hague and Munich were different and that access to, and onward sharing of, school-owned data could require further exploration.
VP1 said that he hoped to meet the director of ESH during the school term. He also confirmed that he would raise the importance of ESH with the newly appointed Dutch Ambassador for International Organisations, both for EPO families and for the attractiveness of The Hague to international organisations.
Children with special needs
The LSCTH reported that the number of cases brought to its attention had increased since the June discussion. Given the complexity and importance of the difficulties faced by these families, it renewed its request for a dedicated meeting involving the relevant services.
The administration confirmed that it had received the open letter from the CSC and was preparing a coordinated reply covering the services concerned. It undertook to take the meeting request into account and said that a written answer would follow soon. The LSCTH reiterated the request at the close of the meeting.
2. Hinge renovation and sports facilities
The LSCTH requested an update on the delayed Hinge renovation, including the tender procedure, the anticipated start of works and the implications for Amicale activities and the canteen.
The administration confirmed that market conditions had delayed the project and that its procurement approach had been adapted to give contractors more flexibility on timing. The current Amicale facilities and canteen could remain in use until mid-2027. It emphasised that the renovation was delayed, not cancelled, and that the subsequent timetable would be refined as feedback from the market became available.
Staff representatives also asked for feedback on a proposal submitted by users of the sports facilities to replace the sports hall floor, supported by a detailed business case. The administration said that it would respond once the assessment was available. VP1 retained this as a follow-up point.
Referring to the information on the intranet, the LSCTH asked to see the actual renovation plans so that it could provide feedback on the future facilities. The administration replied that the design was complete and was being tendered for construction. It considered the published information sufficient to convey the intended layout and appearance and did not intend to provide anything more than the information provided on the intranet to staff representation.
3. Feedback from the work floor
Performance assessment and industrial action
The LSCTH raised reports that intermediate performance reviews were placing greater emphasis on total production, even where productivity was satisfactory. Staff representatives warned that team managers’ repeated emphasis on lower output resulting from reduced capacity could put indirect pressure on colleagues working part-time, taking sick leave or participating in industrial action. They stressed that this could occur without a team manager explicitly referring to strike participation.
The COO rejected the suggestion that there was a policy of focusing on total products to penalise strike participation. He stated that managers must assess a range of indicators, including production, productivity, available capacity, the type of work performed, opposition work, projects and training. He distinguished between observing that reduced capacity led to fewer products and drawing adverse consequences from that observation. He repeatedly stated that colleagues should not be penalised for taking part in a strike or for sickness absence.
The COO nevertheless explained that, towards the end of the year, managers were reviewing priorities and seeking to increase time devoted to search and examination. This could involve reducing or reallocating other activities, including training, projects or classification work, where appropriate. He acknowledged that there was pressure to meet the Office’s production objectives, while rejecting any intention to retaliate against staff or damage their health.
VP1 said that senior management and HR had given a common message to team managers, but acknowledged that individual managers might interpret it differently. He encouraged staff representatives to raise concrete cases through the management chain or with HR Business Partners so that they could be examined and assessments made as fairly as possible.
The LSCTH stressed that the concern also extended to work-to-rule and that staff rights must be respected, with no retaliation for industrial action.1 The administration expressly agreed on this point.
Target increases and examination practice
The LSCTH returned to the double-digit target increases previously reported for certain teams following their integration into a larger directorate. It questioned the application of a common target across the directorate without sufficient regard to differences in technical complexity, including in fields involving artificial intelligence. Staff representatives considered the explanations received so far unsatisfactory.2
The LSCTH also reported pressure in the teams concerned to raise certain objections more sparingly, including objections concerning exclusions and exceptions to patentability, sufficiency of disclosure and clarity. It questioned whether such an approach was compatible with the EPC and the Guidelines and reported differences in practice between sites, teams and individual examiners. The COO said he could not envisage general instructions to disregard EPC provisions and distinguished such instructions from decisions on their applicability in an individual file. The COO also offered to have a dedicated meeting with staff representatives to look at specific examples. The LSCTH also reiterated that colleagues regularly reported adverse effects of production pressure on their health.
___
1 See the open letter from CSC of 23.07.2026 and the reply from PD People of 11.09.2026
2 See the open letter from the CSC of 4.7.2025 and the reply from VP1 of 16.7.2025;
see also the open letter from the CSC of 6.11.2025 and reply from VP1 of 9.12.2025;
see also the reports of VP1 meetings: 29 November 2024 , 6 June 2025 , 3 November 2025, 21 April 2026
4. Implementation of the breastfeeding break policy
The LSCTH welcomed the breastfeeding break policy introduced in May, particularly its trust-based approach, but raised the issue of difficulties with implementation. Feedback from four colleagues indicated that the reduction in available capacity was not reflected in the holistic dashboard. Some team managers were reportedly unaware of the policy, leaving staff to explain it themselves, and some colleagues had been questioned about whether they really needed the time provided.
Staff representatives warned that relying on a later adjustment during appraisal created uncertainty and could discourage colleagues from using the policy, particularly those on fixed-term contracts. They requested that the reduced capacity and corresponding output expectations be reflected in the dashboard for the relevant period.
The administration described the policy as a two-year pilot and reported that twelve colleagues had used it so far. It acknowledged the need to improve communication and support managers in handling these sensitive discussions. It maintained that the reduced capacity was to be addressed in review meetings rather than the dashboard during the pilot, referring to earlier discussions in the GCC and technical meetings. It expressly confirmed that the capacity reduction must be taken into account in the year-end assessment and invited individual cases requiring support to be brought to its attention.
The LSCTH replied that it had not received a convincing explanation for excluding these breaks from the dashboard when other capacity reductions were reflected there, such as for those on maternity leave, staff representation time, and Amicale committee members. It stressed that implementation problems were already undermining confidence in the policy and asked for the issue to be revisited during the pilot, which was fully justified by the fact that 4 of the 12 total users of the policy had indicated problems. No commitment to change the dashboard was made at the meeting.
The administration committed to put the policy on the agenda of the next management meeting to improve awareness. The LSCTH also asked that the guidance available to managers be made accessible to the staff using the policy, and suggested that HR proactively inform colleagues before maternity leave. VP1 asked the administration to follow up on the availability and placement of the information on the intranet.
5. Team managers based at another site
The LSCTH raised concerns about cross-site appointments, particularly the assignment of Munich-based managers to teams located in The Hague. It referred to the replacement of the retiring managers of two formalities teams whose staff were based almost entirely in The Hague. According to the information received, the recruitment process was handled at principal director level, with two principal directors involved. The candidates ultimately selected for the two FO-TM posts were both based in Munich. It was noted that the selection process appeared to lack transparency for all stakeholders involved.
The LSCTH underlined the human impact of such appointments: team members are left with little or no opportunity for face-to-face contact with their line manager. This risks weakening trust, making sensitive discussions more difficult and eroding the sense of belonging to the team and to the Office. More broadly, it may contribute to a growing detachment from the workplace and its day-to-day functioning. As this was only one of several examples brought to the attention of staff representation concerning the risk of disconnection and loss of trust, the LSCTH asked VP1 how many teams were managed from another site while all, or almost all, of their members were based together elsewhere.
VP1 replied that recruitment was generally site-neutral where possible and that the best candidate was selected regardless of location. The requested figures were not available during the meeting. He indicated that the question could be followed up in writing or at the next meeting.
6. Young Professionals programme
At the start of the meeting, the LSCTH reiterated its request for a dedicated discussion on the Young Professionals programme, explaining that it had received extensive feedback and that the issues could not be adequately covered as a short agenda item. VP1 noted that the administration had prepared responses but agreed to take the other priority topics first.
As the Office was not in a position to extend the planned meeting time, the issues were not discussed substantively. The LSCTH renewed its request at the close of the meeting, and VP1 indicated that the administration would consider how to follow up on the issues raised.
Kind regards,
Local Staff Committee The Hague
So patent examiners (for the most part) met with a glorified trademark lawyer, wherein they discussed matters that are a mixed bag and have nothing to do with trademarks. Because it is all about nepotism, not qualifications and/or experience. █