EPO Cannot Recruit Examiners in Compliance With the European Patent Convention (EPC) Because the Goal is to Lower Patent Compliance/Standards
Monopolies. Monopolies everywhere. That alone is the goal.
THE Central Staff Committee of the EPO has published a 2-page paper about António Campinos and his 2020 promises (SUEPO separately published other utterances of his from 2020, but for an entirely different purpose). Earlier this week it told staff: "Dear Colleagues,
"Back in 2020, Mr Campinos said that "no one should be left behind". However, the reality of the rewards statistics show a tremendous variation between the distribution of pensionable rewards: in the last ten years staff have received between seventeen steps or no step at all, as if highly rewarded cases would contribute seventeen times more to the success of the Office than those receiving the minimum rewards. These discrepancies, observed in the past years and involving a high number of colleagues, cannot be justified by the differences in performance."
For the sake of transparency, and given that it is similar to other workplaces around the world, here is the publication:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich, 01.07.2024
sc24038cp
„Nobody should be left behind“ (António Campinos, 2020)
An imperative to fix the current rewarding systemThe performance-based rewarding system is based on a yearly comparative assessment of skills and achievements. Under the annual guidelines for distribution of rewards, steps, double steps and promotions are allocated each year among eligible staff. In 2020, a one- off measure was adopted to award a single step to those colleagues who did not get any since the introduction of the rewarding system in 2015. This was incorporated in the yearly guidelines for distributions of rewards in the form of a catch-up, providing a minimum salary progression of one step every five years up to step five.
As the cards are mixed every year from start, staff just might have repeatedly missed the chance for a pensionable reward. Thus, for some, salary progression relies on the catch-up mechanism only. Eventually, some employees are simply stuck at the end of a grade, with no possibility of advancing.
The effect of the application of the rewarding system can be observed in the rewards statistics of the last ten years, which show the number of advancements – steps or promotions in the period.
Despite the President’s promise that “no one would be left behind”, these numbers show a tremendous variation between the distribution of pensionable rewards: in the last ten years staff have received between seventeen steps or no step at all, as if highly rewarded cases would contribute seventeen times more to the success of the Office than those receiving the minimum rewards. In comparison, two colleagues having started on the same day in the same job, one would be after 10 years still in G7/1 and the other one in G10/3. There is also a factor 4,3 between the lowest 1002 staff having a weighted average of 2,7 steps (1 to 4 steps) and the 846 staff with a weighted average of 11,5 steps having received as many or more steps (10-17 steps) than years of service since 2015, as if the latter would contribute four times more to the success of the Office than the former.
These discrepancies, observed in the past years and involving a high number of colleagues, cannot be justified by the differences in performance.
Motivated staff is the motor of the organisation. The build-up of such strong disparities causes frustration, disengagement and exclusion, affecting staff all over the organisation. Ultimately, this situation weakens work cooperation and jeopardise an overall sustainable functioning of the Office. A correction of the rewarding system would support the Office’s operations and its reputation as an attractive and socially responsible employer in Europe.
The Central Staff Committee
Does this look like today's EPO strives to recruit staff according to the standards mandated by the EPC? No. Not really.
Today's EPO strives to add mindless lemmings, if any at all. Take a look at this ongoing chain of comments about the presidential kangaroo court of Campinos:
The President has spoken:
"To ensure the proper functioning of the EPO and for legal certainty, the President of the EPO has decided that proceedings before the examining and opposition divisions should continue".
https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/notice-european-patent-office-dated-1-july-2024-concerning-continuation-examination-and-opposition
Does the phrase "should continue" indicate that proceedings will continue even if a party makes a request for a stay of proceedings and the outcome of those proceedings depends entirely upon the answers to the questions referred in G 1/24?
It certainly seems that the Notice from the President is intended to serve as an edict, with Examining and Oppositions Divisions forbidden from contravening the rule that it sets out. However, if that is the case, then the President is essentially instructing all Examining and Oppositions Divisions to commit substantial procedural violations in cases where, by rights, a stay of proceedings should be imposed (upon the request of a party).
Why is this person not being impeached? Whose interests does he serve and who commands the most lobbyists around Brussels? █