WRITING ABOUT THE Social Study Award Committee, last year the staff representatives at the EPO contacted the Chinchilla Man of the Administrative Council. They tried to make him aware of the fact that the EPO's 'social' 'study' would be a sham. And as correctly envisaged at the time, it was indeed a sham 'study' produced by a firm of legal bullies, i.e. Battistelli's kind of fellas'. The outcome of this bogus 'study' we covered in the following articles:
To the Chairman and the Heads of Delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation
Social Study Award Committee
Dear Mr Kongstad, Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Office, through PD43, has invited the CSC to nominate an observer in the Social Study Award Committee.
We consider this a first, tiny step towards restoring social dialogue. Nevertheless, we would like to draw your attention on a fundamental issue:How does the Administrative Council (and its Board under Article 28 EPC) intend to ensure that the study is independent and free from possible undue influence from the President?
As mentioned in CA 101/15, the Council has decided to launch an “independent external social study” “in close co-operation with the President”. We would like to stress that the expression “independent external social study” is antithetic with the proposal of it being organised “in close cooperation with the President”. It is difficult to see how the President, who is the one who initiated and carried out all these reforms, should be considered the best and only person to conduct this exercise, which would de facto end in a “self-appraisal”.
If a social study is to be a pillar in the resolution of the on-going conflict, its execution and results must be credible to all stakeholders – staff included. For this purpose, all stakeholders (Administrative Council, EPO Management, staff, trade unions, staff representation) must be involved actively from the earliest stage and throughout the whole process. Accordingly:
- We would expect the Administrative Council (through a subcommittee thereof) to participate in the Award Committee and in the Steering Committee of the Social Study. Moreover, it should be the Council, and not the Office, to be in the “driver’s seat” during this exercise.
- The Staff Representation and the Trade Unions should be actively involved and not merely an observer.
It is wholly inappropriate to involve the staff representation as a mere observer in the Award Committee, and to state – as PD43 did -- that the selected contractor would have total independence in carrying out the study following “established international standards”. If the President is the only party giving input to the contractor, in particular drafting the terms of reference and the technical specifications, the social study will be biased already before the actual selection of the contractor. Also, it remains to be seen how the contractor chosen can remain impartial in respect of the Administration who pays the bill, if there are no other supervising entities involved.
We urge you to take seriously these concerns, so as to prevent an expensive and tragic failure of what could be a first step in resolving the current conflict.
Yours sincerely,
The Central Staff Committee
We confirm that the this letter was legitimately decided and produced by the Central Staff Committee1
______ 1 Pursuant to Article 35(3) ServRegs, the Central Staff Committee shall consist of ten full and ten alternate members.
The CSC presently consists of 17 members, because two have resigned in Dec 2014 and one has been dismissed in Jan 2016 (against the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee).
One full member of the CSC has been downgraded in Jan 2016 (against the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee). In fact, the Office has launched investigations and disciplinary procedures against nearly all SRs, which further caused health problems.
[...]
cc.: Mr B. Battistelli; The President of the EPO PD43