Video download link

Image creator unknown. Contributed by a reader 2 years ago.

Summary: Benoît Battistelli's protégée still seems to be in control of the Office (or the Office President), a view long held by a lot of EPO insiders; it seems to be all about ego and coverup rather than advancement of science or betterment of European entrepreneurship

THE calamitous decline of the illusion of António Campinos as "new" and "better" European Patent Office (EPO) management is indisputable. Last week, or 4 days ago, he put an end to that illusion altogether. He openly and unequivocally sided with Benoît Battistelli's protégée, in effect seeking to censor truthful information to appease her (and her husband, another Battistelli protégé). They're not mere remnants of the Battistelli era; there are several more like them, including Campinos himself. They insist that they're being defamed (words like "libel" are back) even though statements about them are truthful and supported by authoritative links/references.

"They're not mere remnants of the Battistelli era; there are several more like them, including Campinos himself."The video above, the fourth video in this series, discusses the letter sent to and then from Campinos. The Chairman of the Central Staff Committee inquires about the "serial cancellations of meetings" -- a subject we covered here before (almost a week ago) without redacting names. Here's an expunged version of it (same as in the video):

Reference: sc21015cl-0.3.1/4.4 Date: 12.02.2021

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

Mr António Campinos President of the EPO

ISAR - R.1081

OPEN LETTER

Social dialogue: serial cancellations of meetings

Dear Mr President,

Many working group meetings (GCC-SSPR, Resources for Staff Representation, Reform of the internal Appeals Committee, Education and Childcare allowances...) have been cancelled in recent days, all with no information other than “cannot take place” and with an invitation to send our written comments instead to xxxxxxxxxx@epo.org.

We would like to inquire about the real reason(s) for these serial cancellations.

It goes without saying that we are still very interested in social dialogue and in rescheduling the meetings as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxx

Chairman of the Central Staff Committee European Patent Office

It took no less than 4 days to reply to this (while bombarding the EPO's "news" section with tons of mindless fluff, for whatever reason). Here's what was sent and later published without much context (about the contents of the supposedly 'offensive' publication):

Date: 16.02.2021

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

To the Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

Via email: xxxxxxxxx

RE: Request to SUEPO to retract their publication of 4 February 2021 ‘Salary Adjustment Procedure 2020: Loss of Head in Directorate Compensation & Benefits’

Dear Mr Chair,

I write to inform you of developments in our social dialogue with SUEPO. As you must already be aware, SUEPO published a letter on 4 February which regrettably crossed a number of red lines.

From the publication, you will have seen that the letter attacked the professionalism and reputation of our mutual colleagues, simply for representing and expressing the views of the Office in the context of joint meetings with CSC representatives on the Salary Adjustment Method and financial package last year. Secondly, the publication insinuated that the management is responsible for the colleague’s situation. These claims are not just categorically untrue, they could also be considered libellous.

Given this attack on our colleagues, and on the Office’s reputation, we informed SUEPO that the recent publication was being treated very seriously. However, we also underlined that normal working relations with SUEPO would be able to continue were they willing to retract the statement by 15 February at the latest and to offer an apology to those colleagues concerned.

Regrettably, we have received no indication from SUEPO, or any other source, that that publication has in any way been retracted or any kind of apology issued to the colleagues. In the meantime, I have only received a request for clarification from SUEPO, or meeting on this issue, even though my original letter to them explained in no uncertain terms the nature of the problem.

To the contrary, SUEPO has in fact now shown its willingness to attack in public colleagues who represent the views of the management in social dialogue of any kind, whether with the CSC or with SUEPO itself. As I am sure you will understand, it is our duty to protect all colleagues from such public attacks. I have therefore asked our services to implement a period of three months from 16 February during which all social dialogue with SUEPO will be carried out by written exchange only. The Office will therefore not be fielding representatives to meet with SUEPO either in person or online during this period. At the end of the three months the decision will be reviewed.

Despite the recent choice made by SUEPO to breach our values, and to attack colleagues – whether overtly or by insinuation - it is our genuine hope that the dialogue with the CSC, and indeed all Staff Representatives, will remain increasingly constructive. We are looking to build a positive momentum that delivers real results for all our colleagues throughout the organisation, on matters that are important to them.

Staff Representatives are an important channel for helping to represent the views of colleagues, as has been recently noted for example on the extension of contracts. While SUEPO might choose to step away from a constructive approach, the Office asks to Staff Representatives to join us in implementing a positive social dialogue, and to institute efficient meetings which make solid progress based on respect and mutual understanding.

Yours sincerely

xxxxxxx

xxxxxx

It should be rather apparent that the Office management isn't interested in real dialogue but a pretence of dialogue; it moreover seeks to silence stuff representatives and therefore keep EPO staff uninformed (or misinformed by Office management). So much for a "scientific" institution... ⬆