11.22.20
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The EPO is being looted for its value; the staff is rightly concerned and there’s legal action on the way, filed reluctantly as there’s clearly no other option (a last resort/necessary recourse)
OVER the past few weeks we unveiled a number of recent EPO scandals. Internal documents revealed what had happened, including layoff plans, illegal practices and so on.
This is no laughing matter! People’s lives are being utterly ruined (they tell us so) — all this while Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos basically loot the institution without any fear/care! Heck, Campinos only joined this institution less than 2.5 years ago (2.5 years ago he was still at EUIPO). Some people have worked at the EPO for nearly 50 years! 20 times longer than Campinos…
Those who ruined and still ruin the EPO (on multiple levels, both for stakeholders and workers) are going to face the wrath of high-level legal challenges. We showed hints of that a couple of days ago, as it has been made explicit in a letter that preparations were being made. Then there’s this four-page document from last month. It’s about the ‘trickle-up’ effect at the Office, basically passage of wealth from the bottom to the top. The document’s publication wouldn’t be complete without graphics, so instead of HTML we’ll present it as follows:
The Central Staff Committee concludes by saying that “it is therefore with regret that to defend our rights, even in this clear-cut case, we are forced again to resort to a lengthy legal dispute. It is not our intention, and we are simply asking the administration to adopt a fair and reasonable distribution method.”
“They’ve given Campinos ample time and even a public health crisis to exploit; and now the assault of staff is standing at/reaching unprecedented levels, with practically no consideration given to anything staff has to say.”The only thing that surprises us is that it took more than a couple of years to do so. They’ve given Campinos ample time and even a public health crisis to exploit; and now the assault of staff is standing at/reaching unprecedented levels, with practically no consideration given to anything staff has to say. In fact, without physical meetings (because “pandemic!”) there’s just about nothing to be done to resist it, e.g. protests and strikes. People are isolated in their homes, helpless and divided for the most part.
Here’s what the representatives told staff besieged by the management:
On the 6th October 2020, the GCC-SSPR sub-committee met to discuss the proposal of the administration for cash injections into the RFPSS and the Salary Savings Plan (SSP). Once again, Staff representation objected to the proposed distribution of the amounts into individual SSP accounts on the grounds that it heavily favours those in the higher grades and provides disproportionately large sums when compared to those in the lower grades.
The full publication on this topic, which can be found here, provides a more detailed overview of the issue with the cash injections into the SSP. In addition, for those less familiar with the acronyms used, a list including brief descriptions can be found on the last page of the publication.
We assume that readers of ours who aren’t working for the EPO might find the pertinent details a tad dull and the acronyms difficult to keep abreast of; but the short story is, funds are being grossly mis-allocated, not just for gambling. Shockingly, the EU’s officials seem to have no problem with that because at least some of them are part of the collusion/cover-up (Mr. Breton for sure). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Ever noticed how the ‘Kats’ completely stopped talking about the Unified Patent Court (UPC)? They know it’s dead. They just know it.
Summary: UPC proponents (profiteers) aren’t enjoying support anymore; not only has progress stalled (come to a complete stop) but the whole debate about the UPC (or anything conceptually like it) turned toxic and negative because facts come out, overriding lobbyists of litigation giants
THE predictions from Team UPC have long been a source of amusement. Some have given up making fake predictions. Few have not. Some retired early. Some left their employer. UPC promotion is a big risk/liability to one’s reputation. Some began doing it anonymously. How very telling.
“They wasted their money promoting a dud which in retrospect makes them look incredibly dishonest.”These frauds and charlatans thought that repeatedly lying to the public and to our elected officials would accomplish something. They wasted their money promoting a dud which in retrospect makes them look incredibly dishonest.
Now there’s this new paper (exactly a month and a week old), signed by Alain Strowel (alain.strowel@uclouvain.be), Fernand de Visscher (fernand.devisscher@simontbraun.eu), Vincent Cassiers (vincent.cassiers@uclouvain.be), and Luc Desaunettes (luc.desaunettes@uclouvain.be). “If you agree with the position papers or the simple motion,” they say, “please contact one of us.” They urge a “pause” to the whole thing. I’m not adding my name to it because I think that not only the UPC is wrong; anything even remotely like it is wrong. We know where the idea came from and who/what for.
“It’s time to put the brakes on this hopeless chase. It’s a total waste of politicians’ and courts’ time.”Here are the two originals (updated 2 days ago). We’re aware that most people don’t like PDFs and won’t bother opening any, so we’ve reproduced below, as images, both papers/statements, which are mostly signatures (notice Professor Xenos among the signatures below, along with many other names). The images below are added for readers’ convenience. They’re not reproductions of the underlying text.
From the corresponding page:
The Unified Patent Court system is not the best solution for Europe and for innovation, and there are alternative systems to consider after Brexit.
The intellectual property group within CRIDES is behind an on-going initiative to rethink the system for adjudicating patents in Europe.
A position paper and a motion on the Unified Patent Court system, already signed by some experts, practitioners and academics, are available below.
We found this because of UPC boosters, who added an “UPDATE: This article was updated on 21 November 2020 [Saturday] to include the position paper of European academics and practitioners”
As usual, comments there are more informative that the Bristows diatribe. Here’s the latest comment, which speaks about the ridiculous prose from Team UPC’s ‘useful idiots’ in the German government:
Well, I think that we can conclude that my powers of prediction are very strong indeed. On 2 November 2020, I stated that:
“we can already predict with 100% confidence what the responses will be, namely “Everything is in order. Nothing to see here”. We can also be certain that the responses will amount to nothing more than hand-waving, smoke and mirrors and half truths”.
Well, the answers provided by the German government match this prediction PRECISELY. My personal favourite is the answer provided in connection with questions regarding the absence of a cost-benefit analysis for the UPC and the possible impact upon SMEs. This is because the government’s “excuse” for not conducting any analysis is that they were happy to rely upon two prior “studies” that were conducted … in 2009!
The trouble with this is that, back in 2009, the legislation relating to unitary patents was COMPLETELY different. This is because the flavour of the day back then was the ECPC. That proposed system was struck down by the CJEU as being incompatible with EU law. Thus, unsurprisingly, the provisions of the UPC Agreement look rather different. There is also the matter that neither of the 2009 studies includes anything close to a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.
Thus, the German government’s “excuse” for not conducting a full cost-benefit analysis is effectively that other people did some “back of a fag packet” calculations more than a decade ago in connection with a proposed legal system that was really quite different to what we have now.
Well, in the face of such compelling reasoning, I am sure that no one will doubt any of the government’s other assertions, such as:
“The compatibility of the UPCA with the Basic Law, in particular the fundamental rights, as well as with Union law was comprehensively examined”; and
“The federal government does not see any further constitutional deficits”.
I mean, there is no way on earth that these statements could be viewed as being deliberately misleading, right?
So, irrelevant 2009 (yes, 2009!) ‘studies’ are the basis of the lies; back when UPC was mostly a concept, just a little beyond hypothetical. Let’s focus on the 2020 scholarly position (based on experts who produced more than just a study), which explains that the UPC is unsuitable, truly unfit for purpose. It’s time to put the brakes on this hopeless chase. It’s a total waste of politicians’ and courts’ time. A lot of taxpayers’ money was already put into that. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Among other factoids and findings from the latest GCC meeting report
Summary: There’s still no sign (other than hand-waving and empty gestures/smiles) that the EPO’s management wishes to right the wrongs and undo the damage done over the past decade or so; in some ways, today’s management is worse than ever before (grossly incompetent and eager to break the law at every turn)
LAST month there was a rare(r) opportunity to “discuss directly” with António Campinos the “New Normal” 'survey' after he was absent/missing from the last meeting, citing health reasons.
“Battistelli’s ally or “plant” Bergot is claiming “lack of resources” while Battistelli blows EPO money away (on gambling) and speaking about “data protection issues” when the EPO violates data protection laws all the time.”Was the meeting productive? Apparently not, not even by EPO standards (which are appallingly low). After the meeting the Central Staff Committee said that “[o]nly two items were on the official agenda for consultation: the public holidays 2021 and the review of the death insurance.”
“The number of deceased colleagues increased,” it said, “but the low numbers are not statistically significant to show a trend.”
There used to be many suicides as well.
“Newly elected members of the CSC had for the first time the opportunity to discuss directly with Mr Campinos two other burning topics: the Education and Childcare allowance reform and the “New Normal”,” it was noted, telling staff they can “find our report together with the opinions we sent to the President after the meeting.”
The report is interesting. For a number of reasons….
They mention how Benoît Battistelli “removed some public holidays” and “Ms Bergot mentioned data protection issues and lack of resources as reasons for the delay.”
Amazing. Battistelli’s ally or “plant” Bergot is claiming “lack of resources” while Battistelli blows EPO money away (on gambling) and speaking about “data protection issues” when the EPO violates data protection laws all the time.
“The lack of involvement of the Staff Representation for the New Normal survey and the persistent lack of information lead us to believe that Mr Campinos had already unilaterally prepared his plans for the future of the Organisation,” says this report. It’s worth noting that while a meeting did in fact take place (meeting the dictator for the first time in months, or at least talking to him remotely), he’s not budging and there’s no sign that input from staff is taken into consideration at all. What sort of dialogue involves only listening?
Here’s the full report:
Munich 09.10.2020
sc20152cp – 0.2.1/6.2.1
Report on the GCC meeting on 1 October 2020
Only two items were on the agenda for consultation: the public holidays 2021 and the review of the death insurance. The newly elected staff representatives members of the CSC had for the first time the opportunity to discuss directly with Mr Campinos two other burning topics: the Education and Childcare allowance reform and the “New Normal”.
We expressed our pleasure to see Mr Campinos again after the non-meeting of 9 September. He tried to convince us that that social dialogue continued even though he was absent, but we insisted that “nothing could compare to a meeting with the President” and asked for further “catch-up” meetings.
On the agenda:
1. Public Holidays 2021 (GCC/DOC 13/2020)
The document confirms the return to the yearlong practice of calculating additional days of annual leave for all duty stations in reference to the duty station with the highest number of public holidays. The practice had been discontinued by Mr Battistelli who had also removed some public holidays. Unfortunately, for Vienna, Good Friday is once again omitted from the list.
The compulsory office closure during Christmas and New Year’s Eve amounts to four days this year. We argued that in Covid-19 times, with the extension of teleworking and possible travel restrictions, this practice no longer make [sic] sense and could at least be mitigated by granting part of the days from the balance of the Office, in line with the practice in other international organisations. Mr Campinos replied that the number of days of leave in the Office are at the upper end compared to EU agencies and other international organisations and saw no reason to change.
2. Death Insurance: Review of the period 2017-2019 and provisional rates for 2020-2022 (GCC/DOC 14/2020)
The topic was not controversial. The contribution rates proposed for the period 2020-2022 remain the same as for the period 2017-2019. The number of deceased colleagues increased, but the low numbers are not statistically significant to show a trend. The Administration added that the mortality rate was consistent with the rates used in the mortality tables for actuarial studies.
Any other business
3. Reward exercise & fixed-term contracts
We referred to our letter of 7 September asking for further data concerning the last reward exercise to make it more transparent and to be able to assess the current career system in preparation for the upcoming Working Group on career and performance. Ms Bergot mentioned data protection issues and lack of resources as reasons for the delay. She confirmed that data would be provided for the next meeting of the Working Group early October. The Administration also confirmed that a dedicated Working Group would be set up on the topic of fixed-term contracts.
4. Education and Childcare allowance reform
For the first time since the end of July, when the initial reform proposal was shared with staff, we were able to address directly Mr Campinos on this sensitive topic.
The Administration’s intention seems to be to remove the distinction between nationals and non-nationals as set out in current Article 71 ServRegs. We recalled that in the past the staff representation already advocated including nationals, so that they would also be eligible for the education allowance. The Office always opposed an extension to nationals, who thus had to file complaints1 supported by SUEPO. The cases were unfortunately lost before the Tribunal (Judgment 28702).
The present reform proposal shows that when there is a will, there is a way for Mr Campinos to re-open cases which have the force of res judicata3. Unfortunately, in line with the current cost-reduction policy of Mr Campinos, the announced reform would reduce the benefits for most staff – both nationals and expats – and thus the overall
_____
1 “Education allowance for non-expat staff”, SUEPO paper of 21.01.2008, su0812mp
2 The argumentation of the EPO at the time can be found on page 6 of Judgement 2870:
“The EPO denies that it has breached the principle of equal treatment and submits that the different treatment
of nationals and non-nationals under Article 71 of the Service Regulations is justified in light of the purpose of
that article, which is to help expatriate employees provide their children with an education in their country of
origin or in an international school system in order to maintain contacts with the country of origin and to
facilitate their children’s subsequent return to their country of origin for the purposes of study or employment.
Furthermore, the education allowance is not intended to offer financial support to all employees for the
financing of their children’s education but rather to compensate employees who, as non-nationals, are
generally exposed to higher educational expenses for their children.”
3 In his Communiqué of 29.06.2020, Mr Campinos refused to re-open disciplinary cases of former members of the Appeals Committee on the basis that “court rulings have been issued on these cases, so they are considered res judicata”.
budget4. We warned that this would trigger more litigation among those who had legitimate expectations based on the current regulations.
We proposed that the Office should assess how staff would make use of the new scheme. We repeated again our request to commission an impact study which should also take into account the psychosocial impact that such a reform would have on the families concerned.
Site-specific solutions and late impact study
We pointed out that the information we received from the Administration was contradictory. On the one hand, Mr Campinos said that the current reform proposal was only a draft and he promised deeply concerned colleagues in team meetings that there would be site-specific solutions. On the other hand, we heard from the members of his Administration in the Working Group that the proposal was final and that only transitional measures were open for discussion.
Mr Campinos confirmed that he wanted to apply education and childcare benefits to all staff regardless of nationality and to use as much as possible “lump sums” in order to facilitate the management of the allowances. He acknowledged that childcare facilities were more expensive in The Hague and that the lump sums could be adjusted by duty station (“if there is a business case”). Mr Campinos complained about the excessive costs incurred by some schools. This statement confirms our suspicion that cost reduction was is of the driving principles of the reform.
The Staff Representation reiterated its request for impact studies (on financial and psychosocial risks) as soon as possible. Mr Campinos replied that a financial study would be only possible when the draft proposal would be in an advanced stage.
5. New Normal
The lack of involvement of the Staff Representation for the New Normal survey and the persistent lack of information lead us to believe that Mr Campinos had already unilaterally prepared his plans for the future of the Organisation.
Mr Campinos denied the existence of a master plan and the persistent rumours about a dismantling of the Office. However, he admitted that a document on the New Normal was ready and that the Administration was only waiting for the results of the survey. Mr Campinos expressed the hope that staff would ask for more flexibility.
The Central Staff Committee
Annexes: the opinions of the CSC members of the GCC on the two GCC documents for consultation as sent to the President after the meeting.
_____
4 Confidential documents show a reduction of €4,9m in the budget.
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 13/2020: Public Holidays 2021
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the proposal of the list of public holidays for 2021 including four compulsory closure days.
On the number of public holidays
In this year’s proposal, the Office acknowledged the year-long practice of adding days of annual leave for all duty stations in order to align with the duty station with the highest number of public holidays. This is appreciated. Unfortunately, for Vienna, Good Friday is once again omitted from the list.
On the compulsory closure days
The proposal comprises four compulsory closure days for 2021. This is a record in mandatory leave days to date. The Office had proposed three days in previous years, to which we had objected as well.
In view of the number of colleagues currently working from home and in view of the foreseeable extension of homeworking, the explanations given by the Administration to justify this measure is not any longer valid or seems even less convincing. Instead, the change in the situation, with a low office occupancy, should be taken into account – not only for the compulsory closure days in 2021, but even more urgently for the compulsory closure days in 2020.
We propose to discontinue this practice of compulsory office closure days and to leave the flexibility of planning their annual leave to our colleagues.
However, should the President decide to continue this practice, we are of the opinion that the Office should compensate for these compulsory leave days, at least in part. For instance half of the compulsory leave days could be borne by the staff and half by the Office. In our view, this would be a concrete gesture of appreciation for the extraordinary efforts of all our colleagues.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 14/2020: Circular 406; Death insurance (Article 84 ServRegs)
Review for the period 2017–2019 and provisional rates for 2020–2022
The document shows the number of colleagues who passed away in the years 2017–2019 and for whom EPO death insurance was paid. As CSC members of the GCC, we would like to emphasise that we are not only looking at the numbers, but that we do not forget the colleagues who all died too early.
Although the death numbers increased from 4 in 2017 and 6 in 2018 to 7 in 2019, the figures are not statistically significant and no conclusion should be drawn.
We are in favour of the proposal by the Administration to leave unchanged the contribution rate for death insurance, i.e. 0.3% with 0.1% borne by the staff and 0.2% borne by the Office.
The CSC members of the GCC
January 1st will be 2.5 years since Campinos ‘took office’ and halfway into his term. What has he actually accomplished? Social dialogue? No. Peace? No. Improved quality and lawfulness? No, only lies about both. Maybe the real goal isn’t to fix the EPO but to turn it into a printing machine, operating outside the rule of law and in clear defiance of the EPC, directly violating a number of terms and even internal service regulations. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Only Fools and Horses… (or Donkeys) trust the EPO’s management
Summary: In a very characteristic fashion, with zero consultation/input from staff (or staff representatives/union leaders) EPO President António Campinos proceeds to implementing illegal ‘reforms’, assuring any remaining non-sceptics that he’s just another Benoît Battistelli
THE past few weeks at “the Office” (Europe’s second-largest institution, not the TV programme) were much of the same; the ‘European’ Patent Office doesn’t seem to understand — or want to understand — that any patent office without qualified staff is pretty much worthless.
Office management not only crushes staff (financially, morally and so on); it actively breaks a lot of laws, hoping that “Pandemic!” is somehow an excuse for just about anything. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. The EPC did not contain a section that voids all the rules in case of war or pandemic. If you cannot obey/follow the EPC, then do away with the EPO. No nation signed up for some arbitrary, lawless institution to suck up money, gamble money, and then claim diplomatic immunity. If current EPO management does not understand this, then flush this management down the toilet, hold the crooks accountable, then start afresh (the examiners can stay; the bosses need to go).
“This is ‘Tobacco Industry’ kind of pseudoscience…”Both the EPO’s union and the representatives (more internal in the latter case) have strongly condemned the latest plot to crush staff. As usual, or as might be expected based on the past decade, the Council goes along with whatever Office management asks for. No wonder 0% of surveyed EPO staff trusts the Council. It’s little but a rubber-stamping operation of and for the Office President.
It should be noted that this glorified Office President is no achiever. No background in science, no accomplishment other than photo ops. “Like all dictatorships,” someone told me yesterday in a similar context, “they prioritize loyalty & obedience over competence.”
The litigation ‘industry’ likes Campinos because he’s serving the patenting and litigation ‘sector’ while oppressing actual scientists. Even if/when that sector is American, not European. Sure, it has some branches and operations in Europe, but those operations are inherently parasitic.
Staff that practiced science and exercised patent examination for years if not decades very well understands what Campinos is up to and who he’s serving. It’s not science. The regime is deeply unscientific and at times anti-scientific. It gets hoax ‘studies’ from Donald Trump allies that sponsor the far right; it’s doing bogus ‘surveys’ where the sole goal is to justify some predetermined outcome. This is ‘Tobacco Industry’ kind of pseudoscience…
Now, for actual material and evidence regarding this matter…
At the start of last month several letters were circulated, leading up to last week.
In its own words:
The Central Staff Committee (CSC) raised the crucial issue of involvement of all stakeholders on the “New Normal” in an open letter to the President…
Here’s the letter dated October 14th:
Reference: sc20154cl – 0.3.1/4.6
Date: 14.10.2020
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Mr António Campinos
President of the EPO
ISAR – Room 1081
OPEN LETTER
Constructed urgency and deconstructed social dialogue
Dear Mr President,
On 6 May 2020, you launched a survey by Willis Towers Watson (WTW) entitled “Strong together – working during Covid-19”. No follow-up of this survey took place, in particular with respect to the evolution of the health of staff. The Central Staff Committee (CSC) was left out in both the preparation and the evaluation of this survey.
On 16 September 2020, you launched a further survey by WTW on the so-called “New Normal”, rushing into a new reality without checking on the health of staff. The CSC has again not been involved at all in elaborating the content of the survey.
The consequences of any decision on these matters will affect the EPO both in fulfilling its mission as in the mission statement, and the daily lives of every staff member. Some changes could even be irreversible, which asks for a prudent, timely and fully concerted approach involving all stakeholders. In that respect the CSC has sent a letter to the Administrative Council1. Staff had to cope throughout the year with the exceptional circumstance of Covid-19 and now the EPO is set to quickly engage in far-reaching reforms.
The CSC has repeatedly requested an improvement on the consultation process, the last time in an Open Letter2. The CSC was shocked to observe that results of the survey on New Normal appear to have already been provided to HR and that presentations are being made, but the CSC has not received this information. This approach lends to the spread of rumours that do not facilitate the active interaction between yourself and the staff.
_______
1 Letter to the AC, 02.10.2020
2 Letter to the President, 24.07.2020
In the meeting of last GCC3 you mentioned that the administration had already drafted a document on the New Normal before the results of the survey were known. Such changes to the current working conditions entail numerous risks and require an impact study. There is no need to rush any reform.
Please take the advantage of building the future of the Office on the most diverse base possible. This should include the preparation of an informal discussion in the Administrative Council (possibly foreseen already for the December meeting).
Not informing the CSC on (preliminary) results of the survey constitutes a lack of transparency and lack of honouring obligations towards the CSC to which you committed4. In line with your commitment to promote a culture of dialogue that focuses on mutual understanding, we urge you to ensure that the CSC is fully informed on the (preliminary) results of the WTW survey without further delay.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Sampels
Acting Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
_______
3 Report on the GCC, 01.10.2020
4 Social dialogue, undated
Two weeks prior to it, on October 2nd, the so-called ‘bosses’ of Campinos were briefed on this matter. As the Central Staff Committee put it:
A broad and early debate is necessary to first set the course for the future and secondly address all aspects of “New Normal” which will influence the working conditions of staff as well as the content and the quality of their work for years to come. “New Normal” as management sees it even questions the institutional principles of immunity and centralisation on which the success of the Organisation was built.
Why offer immunity for those who repeatedly break the law? Why is the Council tolerating this? What does that say about the Council?
“In this open letter to the heads of delegations of the Member States,” said the introduction to the letter signed by the Chairman of the Committee, “we appeal to their sense of responsibility.” [sic]
They never had any real sense of responsibility; this is why 0% of the surveyed staff said they’re trustworthy.
Here’s the full letter:
Reference: sc20147cl – 0.3.1/1.3.1
Date: 02.10.2020
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
To the Chairman and
The Heads of Delegations of the
Administrative Council of the European
Patent Organisation
OPEN LETTER
Setting the course for the “New Normal”
Dear Mr Chairman,
dear Heads of Delegations,
The President has recently announced that we are approaching a critical point in the history of our Organisation1 and management is in the process of concretely shaping the “New Normal”:
The President has offered a temporary scheme for teleworking, which allows staff to work from any EPC country, i.e. far away from their usual places of employment. Many staff members confronted with the pandemic are using it.
The pandemic has also made the previous scenarios in the building investment programme completely obsolete. We suspect that management is presently working full steam ahead on formatting even worse scenarios about the future use of EPO buildings, up to selling them2. We are also concerned about excessive staff depletion in some places of employment.
Recent experience teaches us that we, the Staff Representation, will be informed and consulted too late, when the policy decisions are close to being implemented3. It is also presently unclear how late the Member States will be informed, and how great their involvement will be in shaping those plans. In any case, there has been no discussion on which course would be most desirable for our Organisation.
_______
1 See the President’s announcement to staff: “Shaping our future”
2 Selling Pschorrhöfe Bauteil 7 in Munich seems now certain; as in document CA/43/19 Rev.1, page 35/39.
3 We were not even involved in the drafting of the staff survey, contrary to the practice in the past.
If we are indeed approaching a critical point in the history of our Organisation, as the President surmises, then a broad and early debate is necessary to first set the course for the future and secondly address all aspects of “New Normal” which will influence the working conditions of staff as well as the content and the quality of their work for years to come4. “New Normal” as management sees it even questions the institutional principles of immunity and centralisation5 on which the success of the Organisation was built.
All this cannot be achieved by “business as usual”, i.e. the late involvement of the stakeholders and “faits accomplis” policy. Instead, one would expect the President of the Office to start discussions with all stakeholders.
We count on you, the delegations of the Member States, to remind the President that all stakeholders must play a part commensurate with the challenges ahead.
Yours sincerely,
Alain Dumont
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
_______
4 Seven months’ experience of “New Normal” type working does not mean we now have enough knowledge to extrapolate the long-term effects, e.g. on corporate culture, ergonomics, psychosocial aspect, collaboration within (Examining) Divisions, etc.
5 As anchored in the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities and in the Protocol on Centralisation
Having written letters addressed to the President and to the Council (above), the Central Staff Committee also wrote to staff and said: “The only urgency is to resume with human relation” (examiners are human).
The introductory text said that “the Office should not rush into defining a so-called “New Normal”. Instead, it should properly involve all staff and in particular your elected staff representatives in defining the necessary next steps on this journey. It is the time to step back and take a good look, not to rush things beyond any point of no return.”
Here’s the full letter:
Munich, 23.10.2020
sc20162cp – 0.2.1/4.6
New Normal staff survey results
It is urgent to wait!
Dear colleagues,
By now, the first survey results have been presented to us all and it seems that the Administration is willing to use these results to define a so-called “New Normal” at fast pace. We, the Staff Representatives from all sites, would like to support you, our colleagues, and the Office to plan for a future which guarantees the long-term sustainability of our Office.
On a positive note:
- More than three quarters1 of us all would like to continue teleworking to a greater or lesser extent.
- More than three quarters of us all would like to continue using Office premises to a greater or lesser extent.
We appreciate the diversity of your answers. Beyond the plurality of views on teleworking, it is obvious that the great majority – whilst wanting to enjoy greater flexibility – acknowledge the value of proper collaboration, of meeting colleagues face-to-face and also making use of e.g. the canteens2 and Amicale facilities. Vastly more colleagues working in the core business feel that their work has become more difficult than easier3. There seems to be no wish for decentralisation or a closing of sites therein. All of us think that a sense of belonging is important for the future of the Office.
Some further preliminary remarks:
We are still in the middle of a pandemic, i.e. in some kind of an emergency state. The survey conductor Willis Towers Watson (WTW) admitted that it was the first survey of that kind for them. In the absence of any precedent, we beg to ask how reliable these results really are, in their entirety.
It is too early for us to elaborate for now on the survey in detail. However, we wonder, with regards to the methodology used, whether the standard survey criteria (reliability, objectivity, validity) have been followed.
Importantly, it remains to be seen whether the feelings of staff and long-term psychosocial aspects have been adequately caught by the questions and reflected in the results
_______
1 See in particular slides 24 and 31
2 See in particular slides 45 and 46
3 See in particular slides 21 and 22
presented so far, or whether they would be more fittingly deduced from the numerous comments (over 40’000) given by staff. An in-depth evaluation of these is still due.
Conclusion
The Office should not rush into defining a so-called “New Normal”. Instead, it should properly involve all staff and in particular your elected staff representatives in defining the necessary next steps on this journey. It is the time to step back and take a good look, not to rush things beyond any point of no return.
The only urgency is to resume with human relation
Your Central Staff Committee
Lastly, after intervention from the Central Staff Committee, the union (SUEPO) weighed in as well. That was earlier this month when SUEPO wrote to members that “Mr Campinos has invited SUEPO to a meeting on 18 November. Since the beginning of his mandate, social dialogue has remained painfully slow on all fronts. The present pandemic led to a new working environment and following the latest survey by Willis Towers Watson on the “New Normal”, the SP2023 plan is being adapted to a “New Normal” situation – all without any input from the social partners. Our position in nearly all outstanding matters (in particular Career System, Rules for Strike, Memorandum of Understanding) has consistently been to follow the EU model. Staff deserves to know clearly the position of the administration on these issues.”
Here’s the full letter, which was presented 10 days ago regarding a meeting that took place 4 days ago (Wednesday):
10 November 2020
su20035cl – 0.3.1
OPEN LETTER
Mr António Campinos
President of the EPO
ISAR– Room 1081
Meeting President/SUEPO
Dear Mr Campinos,
Thank you for your invitation to a “President/SUEPO” meeting on 18 November 2020. We agree with you that it is high time to engage in genuine social dialogue for the benefit of staff and the Office, and as such a calendar of topic-specific meetings needs to be established urgently.
The present pandemic has led to a new working environment and following the latest survey by Willis Towers Watson on the “New Normal”, the SP2023 plan is being adapted to a “New Normal” situation – all without any input from the social partners. The career is in urgent need for a thorough review, not some mere quick fixes1 – the reform of the education and childcare allowances ought to be discussed in depth rather than stalling and focusing on transitional measures with an undefined final destination.
It is high time to truly engage with the social partners in finding the best way forward for staff and the Office, and each of these items warrants a calendar of topic-specific meetings. We would like to propose a series of meetings once every 6 weeks, each meeting dedicated to a single topic only. The meeting currently planned for 18 November 2020 could be used to draw up such a mutually agreed calendar.
In parallel, we are aware of some recent far-reaching opinions of the Appeals Committee, notably relating to the SUEPO facilities (incl. access to mass emails), the excessive strike deductions over weekends, and the “house arrest” under the health & sickness provisions2. Any meeting with SUEPO only makes sense if there is a clear and explicit willingness from your services to implement the necessary changes to the ServRegs as mandated by these
_______
1 “Input for the Working Group Performance Management”, CSC letter of 08.07.2019 sc19095cl
2 “Urgent amendment of Circular 367 and immediate suspension of ‘house arrest’”, CSC letter of 30.10.2020 sc20165cl
opinions. Without such a statement, any meeting with SUEPO remains a mere checkbox-ticking public relations exercise and risks to be a waste of time for all involved.
Also remaining on our agenda, where no tangible progress can be reported:
- The settlement of sanctions on former SUEPO officials and other Staff representatives;
- A review of the Rules for Strike and progress on a Memorandum of Understanding, where we are still looking forward to receiving a reaction to our proposal as submitted on 25-04-20153;
We can only observe that social dialogue has remained painfully slow on all fronts since the beginning of your mandate. Our position in nearly all matters (in particular Career System, Rules for Strike, MoU) has consistently been to follow the EU model – and staff deserves to know the position of the administration on these issues. We are not able to explain to staff why such reviews are delayed and why staff should be treated differently – and poorly – in comparison with staff in other EU agencies.
Genuine social dialogue should be our shared goal: working together we can arrive at agreements that foster social peace and prevent further litigation.
Yours sincerely,
Joachim Michels
Chairman of SUEPO Central
Copy: Mr Josef Kratochvíl; Chairman of the Administrative Council
_______
3 “Input to the WG on Union Recognition” – su15182cl – which includes our draft proposal for a MoU as submitted earlier on 05-02-2014 (su14020cl) and copies of agreements between the European Commission and the trade unions
The bottom line is, staff is still not being consulted and COVID-19 is gleefully exploited by management to do illegal things, retroactively justifying those things with bogus surveys and statements saying those things “have been broadly welcomed by the patent profession” (which is like saying that a war was “broadly welcomed by the military contractors”). The EPO’s staff deserves better than this anarchical management, which is defended by corrupt officials further up the chain. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA