This Month's General Consultative Committee (GCC) Webchat ('Meeting') Covered the European Patent Office's Attacks on Its Own Interpreters
THE General Consultative Committee (GCC) at the EPO, formerly referred to by different names/acronyms, involves members of the management cabal (in recent years that meant friends of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos rather than people with suitable qualifications) and members of staff who actually do all the work, typically patent examiners.
The Central Staff Committee is currently circulating a report with appendices about the GCC meeting [sic] (webchat) that took place less than a fortnight ago. This report is dated today. Here's the full text:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
Munich, 22-07-2024
sc24046cpReport on the GCC meeting of
10 July 2024Dear Colleagues,
The General Consultative Committee (GCC) met by videoconference on 10 July 2024. The following items were on the agenda of the meeting and the CSC members of the GCC raised their concerns and tried to get further clarifications:
• Periodical review 2024 – for consultation GCC/DOC 08/2024
• Review of the conditions for the provision of interpreting services at the European Patent Office – for consultation GCC/DOC 09/2024
• Temporary catering services in Berlin – for information GCC/DOC10/2024
The detailed and reasoned comments and opinions by the CSC members of the GCC are annexed to this paper.
The Central Staff Committee
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 08/2024:
Periodical review 2024
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on document GCC/DOC 08/2024.
The CSC members of the GCC appreciate the pre-consultation of members of the Staff Committee on the periodical review of the Service Regulations for permanent and other employees of the European Patent Office, the Implementing Rules to the Service Regulations, the Regulations for the Reserve Funds for Pensions and Social Security of the European Patent Organisation and the New Pension Scheme Regulations of the European Patent Office in a technical meeting, which took place on 19 June 2024. This technical meeting took place in good time before the deadline for submission of documents under Article 6(1) of the Rules of procedure of the General Consultative Committee of the European Patent Office. Participants were pleased to note that the intensive and constructive discussions on the initially proposed amendments had led to a revision of parts of the document. The CSC members of the GCC would also like to recommend that the time allotted for such technical meetings be freed from unnecessary and artificial time constraints, and that requests to nominate to technical meetings be provided along with the relevant documents and with sufficient time to arrange the nominations in various weekly meetings.
The planned amendments to Annex I of the Service Regulations are rejected by the CSC members of the GCC. The proposal that the technical and managerial career paths listing job titles, such as senior expert, examiner, team manager, head of department, head of section etc., are to be deleted from the table in Annex I and then only remain in Circular No. 365 is met with great scepticism. The remarks in section 12 of the document that these job titles are outdated and require a more dynamic approach are alarming, especially because it was explained at the meeting of the GCC that changes are planned in the near future. The CSC members of the GCC find it worrying that changes to the basic structure of the technical and managerial career paths could be made in the future bypassing the Administrative Council.
The comment in section 12 of the document that the current table does not reflect the existing managerial and technical career paths at each job group level is irritating. The CSC members of the GCC expect that the career paths are implemented as foreseen in the Service Regulations. If this is not the case, then a colleague should be classified in a higher job group in accordance with the existing table so that it fits. This applies in particular to colleagues in job group 6. Since the management career starts in job group 5, colleagues in job group 6 who currently perform management tasks should be classified in job group 5. Errors in the assignment of job groups should be corrected, not the table adapted to the errors.
The proposed amendment to Article 6(6) of the Implementing Rules for Article 106 to 113 of the Service Regulations for Permanent and Other Employees of the European Patent Office is highly problematic. First of all, the CSC members of the GCC hope that the incomplete tracked changes, in which the word “remains” does not appear in strikethrough in the amended version, is merely a lapsus and not intentional. It is
precisely this word that indicates that Article 6(6) only regulates those settlements that the chair or presiding member of a chamber dealing with an appeal has initiated in accordance with Article 6(1) and (2). This is further confirmed by the fact that when Article 6 was last amended, the “[s]trengthening of the role and procedural prerogatives of the external chair and presiding members of the Appeals Committee” was explicitly emphasised and the term “guided amicable settlement procedure (new Article 6 Implementing Rules)” was used (see CA/58/17, paragraph 58).
It is misleading to refer in section 17 to “Article 6 of the Implementing Rule for Articles 106 to 113 ServRegs that entered into force on 1 January 2013” when arguing that it “foresees the competence of the Appeals Committee to assess claims regarding the validity, application or execution of a settlement.” Article 6 of the Implementing Rule that entered into force on 1 January 2013 regulated the “Impartiality of the Appeals Committee” (see CA/99/12 and CA/D 9/12). It is silent on amicable settlements but rather refers to an independent panel of three members to be appointed by the President of the Office which shall be competent for the settling of cases in which objections of partiality against the chair and members of the Appeals Committee are raised. Furthermore, Article 6 that entered into force on 1 January 2013 is no longer in force, but was replaced in decision CA/D 7/17 with the explanations quoted above from CA/58/17.
It follows, therefore, that Article 6(6) of the Implementing Rules in its present form refers exclusively to those settlements which are governed by Article 6, namely those facilitated by the chair or presiding member of a chamber. The assertion in section 17 that this provision was originally meant to offer employees means of redress when issues concerning the validity, application or execution of a settlement arise is fallacious. This is also confirmed by the reference to an opinion of the Appeals Committee in section 18, in which “the Appeals Committee, however, concluded that it is not competent to assess the validity, application and execution of a settlement agreement when that agreement was concluded after it had issued an Opinion on the underlying internal appeal.”
The CSC members of the GCC object to the proposed amendment because it is unsystematic and bears a high risk of further litigation. As an example, it should be mentioned that, as the administration in the GCC argued, amicable settlement agreements have regularly referred to said Article 6(6). According to the principle of tempus regit actum, it will therefore always have to be clarified after an amendment to which version of Article 6(6) such references refer. If the Appeals Committee is now to be made competent to deal with claims for the validity, application or execution of a settlement concluded at any stage of the dispute irrespective of whether it was involved in the conclusion of such settlement, parallel competences may arise because the contractual liability is also regulated in Article 9(1) and (4)(a) EPC. In addition, procedural ambiguities arise as to when and in what form the Appeals Committee is to be approached if it is competent for settlements concluded at any stage of a dispute.
However, the CSC members of the CSC would like to emphasise that they consider a reasonable regulation for amicable settlements to be highly desirable. Yet this should not be done now in an unsystematic quick fix, but in a well thought-out legal text. If, for example, amicable settlements are to be possible after the Appeals Committee has
issued an opinion, it will serve the interests of fairness to make this opinion available to both the appellant and the appointing authority at the same time. Furthermore, Article 110(4) ServRegs should specify a time limit within which the competent appointing authority must take a final decision on the appeal.
Contrary to the conclusion of section 20, the CSC members of the GCC are of the opinion that the proposed amendment fails to clarify the legal remedies available to staff regarding settlement agreements. It would rather deteriorate the internal dispute resolution system.
Finally, the CSC members of the GCC would like to state that they welcome the proposed amendments on gender-neutral language, for example in Article 16 ServRegs. It is also welcomed that a pragmatic solution has been found in Article 74a(2) ServRegs. The amendments for textual simplification and clarification mentioned in paragraph 2.1.1 and the clerical changes mentioned in paragraph 2.1.2 can also be endorsed.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 9/2024: Review of the conditions of employment of interpreters
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the Review of the conditions of employment of interpreters in GCC/DOC 9/2024 (CA/35/24, Rev. 1). The document is a revised version of former GCC/DOC 2/2024 (CA/35/24) submitted in the Budget and Finance Committee meeting of 23/24 May 2024.
The document abolishes the whole section of the Codex related to the conditions of employment of interpreters at the EPO (see opinion on GCC/DOC 2/2024, Annex 5) and proposes to replace them with a new model based on framework contracts.
On the consultation
1. In the Budget and Finance Committee meeting of 23/24 May 2024, delegations were asked for an opinion on GCC/DOC 2/2024 (CA/35/24). They asked for additional elements and for alternatives to be considered.
2. On Monday 17 June 2024, EPO interpreters attended a Town Hall meeting organised by their line managers together with the Employment Law Department. The meeting was solely dedicated to the planned reform. The interpreters were not provided with any revised document at this stage. The staff representation was not invited to the Town Hall meeting.
3. On Tuesday 25 June 2024, the administration tabled in the General Consultative Committee (GCC), the revised document GCC/DOC 9/2024 (CA/35/24, Rev. 1). The administration did not deem it necessary to organise a Technical Meeting with the revised document in advance.
4. On Wednesday 10 July 2024, the meeting of the General Consultative Committee (GCC) took place.
On the merits
The revised document still suffers from lack of information raised already in the opinion on GCC/DOC 2/2024. The staff representation can only rely on assumptions and information retrieved from other sources than the administration.
On the starting point of the reform
5. The document presents as a starting point the question of the interpreters’ affiliation to national social security schemes raised in a contracting state where only 7 interpreters reside (par. 7). The document does not mention which contracting state is referred to.
6. The administration admitted in the GCC meeting of 30 April 2024 that the contracting state was actually the Netherlands and did the same in front of the delegations in the Budget and Finance Committee meeting of 23/24 May 2024. This information should have now been added to the document.
7. In the GCC meeting of 30 April 2024, Employment Law admitted that the Netherlands asked the EPO to become a contributor to national social security for interpreters working at the EPO. In their view, if the EPO were not doing so, the immunity of the organisation would be at stake according to the Seat Agreement with the Netherlands. Employment Law said that the problem had been a long-standing issue and that no other solution than abolishing the conditions of employment of interpreters was possible. We asked in the GCC meeting of 30 April 2024 several times for the reference to the part of the Seat Agreement relevant for the issue at stake.
8. The revised document does not bring further additional information in this respect. The administration just amended the document to state (par. 8) that paying premiums to a national security scheme for employees goes against the principles of autonomy in employee matters and the Organisation’s independence towards its Contracting States. There is still no convincing explanation of exactly what is the underlying problem.
9. In the Town Hall meetings of 29 April and 17 June 2024, the administration admitted that it is still in negotiations with the Netherlands and admitted that they were not successful in the past two or three years in convincing them. The administration told the interpreters that the Dutch authorities “are very slow to respond”, “haven’t responded on this particular point”, etc.
10. The interpreters consider that they are left in the dark as to the content of the exchanges between the EPO and the Dutch authorities. They still do not understand why the repeal of their conditions of employment has to be done in such a hurry if negotiations are still ongoing with the Dutch authorities.
11. Overall, the interpreters consider that they have only been “informed” about the EPO’s plans. Despite several meetings with them, answers to questions they sent in writing and contractual suggestions inserted into the new framework, they remain however of the position that they were never actually “consulted” on the repeal of their working conditions. The frustration remains.
On the risks of bogus self-employment
12. According to our information, the Netherlands is currently having a close look at major employers hiring freelancers. When a person registered as self-employed, a freelancer, or a temporary employee is de facto an employee carrying out a professional activity under the authority and subordination of another company, the situation is considered to be bogus self-employment. Such bogus self-employment is often a way to circumvent social welfare and employment legislation, for example by avoiding employer's social security and income tax contributions
13. Interpreters working for the EPO currently have a hybrid status. For the time that they work for other clients, interpreters remain freelancers or employees of that other organisation. For the time that they work for the EPO, interpreters are EPO employees protected by the PPI. Essentially, they do not pay national income tax on their income from the EPO. However, they pay for their own national social security contributions and for their national pension scheme.
14. If the Netherlands considers that EPO interpreters are under bogus self-employment because the EPO does not pay contributions, abolishing their EPO conditions of employment makes the situation worse in other countries of residence. Over 90% of EPO interpreters live in DE (90), FR (40), CH (30), UK (25) and BE (20) (see opinion on GCC/DOC 2/2024, Annex 7, page 7). In fact, by making interpreters pure freelancers with “framework contracts”, the EPO would still not pay contributions to national social security and the risk of bogus self-employment would be increased in all countries.
15. The revised document is now attempting to mitigate risks of bogus self-employment by introducing an obligation for the interpreters to limit their work for the Office (par. 14). The proposed framework contract contains a specific clause (page 12) that “[T]he Contractor shall not provide Interpreting Services for more than 70 (seventy) days in any given calendar year to the EPO”.
16. In the Town Hall meeting of 17 June, the procurement services gave another reason for the limit. According to them, the EPO Financial Regulations require any contract signed by the EPO to have a limit defining the contract’s value.
17. The introduction of the document mentions that the EPO needs interpreters with a solid basic knowledge of all technical fields (par. 2). Of the interpreters who successfully make it through the challenging onboarding phase, only very few currently cease to work for the Office due to this high degree of specialisation and the time they invest in this training.
18. However, the proposed model based on framework contracts putting obligations to limit work for the Office makes the return on time investment less interesting and reduces the opportunities of specialization via increased experience.
19. According to the revised document (par. 26), in 2023, interpreters worked for the Office between 0 and 102 days (par. 26). In the GCC meeting of 10 July 2024, Employment Law orally gave more detailed figures, some based on a document provided by the interpreters themselves on 14 May 2024:
• 5 interpreters work more than 100 days per calendar year for the EPO. They are based in Munich and and provide interpreting services for in-person meetings (e.g. for the Boards of Appeal).
• For 60% of the interpreters, the EPO's share of their total income is 50% or less. This means they earn half or more of their income from other institutions.
• For 20% of the interpreters, the EPO’s share of their income is 75% or more of their income from the EPO.
20. The limitation to 70 days of EPO work will therefore negatively affect the interpreters (namely at least 40). This detrimental situation is disproportionate when comparing it with the starting point of the reform caused by the Netherlands where only 7 interpreters reside.
21. The interpreters who are currently working more than 100 days per calendar year for the EPO are the ones are based in Munich and provide interpreting services for in-person meetings (e.g. for the Boards of Appeal). In the GCC meeting of 10 July 2024, the Language Services acknowledged that because of the limitation to 70 days of EPO work, they will have to call interpreters from elsewhere and pay travel and daily allowance costs on top of usual pay. In the Town Hall meeting of 17 June 2024, the Language Services gave more details and stated that the additional interpreters would be among the ones residing elsewhere in Germany, in Switzerland (Basel), in France (Strasbourg) and in Austria (Vienna). The additional travel and daily allowance costs do not appear to have been taken into account when assessing the financial implications of the proposed “framework contracts”.
On the shift to framework contracts
22. The abolition of the conditions of employment of interpreters removes from the Codex regulations including: the statutory daily remuneration rates, working hours, the payment of overtime, the adjustment of the remuneration, protection in case of cancellations, reimbursement of travel costs and the entitlement to the daily substance allowance.
23. According to our information, the OECD in Paris shifted to a “framework contract” model in 2018. Such a contract is signed at the beginning of the year by all freelancers with annexes relevant to interpreters. The OECD does not offer social security nor a pension scheme. The OECD remains the least attractive in comparison with other International Organisations such as the EU, UN, WTO, CoE. The latter do offer an attractive hybrid status to which interpreters are attached.
24. The EPO is planning to adapt its conditions to the low standard of the OECD. This is unwise. Contrary to the OECD, the EPO relied for decades on a pool of “highly talented” interpreters specialised in Patent Law. The EPO should rather be focused on maintaining attractive conditions to ensure business continuity instead of trying to save on responsibilities and liabilities.
25. According to our information, the “framework contracts” of the OECD specify the team strength for interpreting, the manning strength in Remote Simultaneous Interpreting (RSI) and in-person meetings. This is not the case for the EPO’s “framework contracts”. The interpreters have to rely on a gentleman’s agreement which is not binding. This is a matter of concern for interpreters.
26. In the Town Hall meeting of 17 June 2024, the Language Services explained that the “framework contract” is under German law and that it is not possible to have a contract which would have a place of jurisdiction in the state where the interpreter signatory resides. The “framework contract” mentions (page 16) that it will enter into force on 1 January 2025 and end on 31 December 2029 (“initial term”) and will be extended by periods of 1 year unless a Party has given six weeks’ advance written notice before expiry.
27. The EPO pretends to offer with the “framework contracts” "equivalent” conditions to those currently offered in the Service Regulations (see opinion on GCC/DOC 2/2024, Annex 5). However, the interpreters have no guarantee that in 5 years’ time they will remain subject to these “equivalent” conditions.
28. As the interpreters would not be employees of the EPO anymore as of 1 January 2025 because of the repeal of their conditions, there would be no obligation for the administration to consult the General Consultative Committee for any future change.
On the lack of application of the PPI
29. The lack of application of the PPI to interpreters would abolish Article 14(c) guaranteeing the inviolability for all their official papers and documents, including EPO documents.
30. In the GCC meeting of 30 April 2024, the Language Services said that they saw no issue as interpreters work in the core business for opposition and appeals where the confidentiality of the case does not apply anymore. However, in the Town Hall meeting of 17 June 2024 the Procurement Services told interpreters they should be careful when names are mentioned while they are interpreting and should not be repeated to anyone. This requirement is not mentioned in the “framework contracts”.
31. However, the “framework contracts” now feature a lengthy section on the duty of confidentiality and data protection shifting new responsibilities to interpreters.
32. First, statements like: “[t]he Contractor is also bound by this duty of confidentiality towards staff of the EPO. The Contractor must keep access to such confidential information to the minimum necessary for the performance of the Agreement” are broad. They are now a concern for interpreters.
33. Second, the interpreters are requested to assist the EPO in ensuring compliance with its obligations under the applicable Data Protection Rules of the EPO. However, as the contract is under German jurisdiction, any dispute will be solved by a national court on the basis of a text specific to the EPO.
34. This is a new complication which would be avoided if the EPO kept the interpreters as employees.
On national income taxation and other financial issues
35. The abolition of the conditions of employment of interpreters makes their EPO income taxable. To compensate for this taxation, the EPO proposes to increase the interpreters’ daily rates by 40% and the revised document adds a flat rate of 150 € for the preparation time that they spend on each assignment (par. 12).
36. Interpreters had explained in their document of 24 April 2024 that the calculated fee increase is insufficient in practice (see opinion on GCC/DOC 2/2024, Annex 7, page 7) and that an average cannot fit all the situations.
37. The revised document mentions (Annex 1, page 10) that “[p]urchasing power is guaranteed since the fee will be contractually linked to automatic inflation (EU-HICP)”. However, the “framework contracts” (page 13) mentions the fees will be adjusted by applying “HICP – Overall index, Euro area (changing composition)”. Such a discrepancy should not be in a document at this stage of the consultation.
38. In their document, interpreters note the risk of retroactive liability for tax arrears (see opinion on GCC/DOC 2/2024, Annex 7, page 5). They give as an example that interpreters working for the EU have been required to retroactively pay tax on past earnings from these institutions.
39. In the GCC meeting of 30 April 2024, Employment Law tried to reassure that for the time during which interpreters were EPO employees, there will be no taxation issues and no risk of taxation arrears. This statement was not substantiated by any evidence.
40. Many EPO interpreters are members of AIIC (Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence) and uphold its Code of Professional Ethics, which includes the principle of equal pay for equal work.
41. In their document, interpreters also note that the EPO may have to pay VAT in non-EU countries (see opinion on GCC/DOC 2/2024, Annex 7, page 4). It is an aspect not commented upon in the GCC document.
On the alternatives
42. The revised document now mentions alternatives. In the GCC meeting of 10 July 2024, Employment Law however confirmed that these are mentioned for the sole purpose of setting them aside.
43. The alternatives are:
1. Integration of the interpreters in the Office’s existing social security scheme
2. Offering a separate affiliation to a specific social security system
3. Terminating the contract of interpreters in the relevant Contracting State
44. In the Town Hall meeting of 17 June 2024, the Language Services explained that the Budget and Finance Committee agreed to a budget increase under 3 M€ per year and that this is the threshold without room for negotiation anymore
45. This argument is not made in good faith. Back in May, the document CA/35/24 submitted to the Budget and Finance Committee did not mention any alternative to the model based on “framework contracts” nor did it provide the financial implications of alternatives. The 3 M€ budget restrictions was made at the EPO’s sole initiative and calculated on the basis of one single proposal sent to the delegations.
Alternative 1: Integration of the interpreters in the Office’s existing social security scheme
46. The administration pretends that if interpreters are no longer affiliated to the national social security, then this may not be a desirable outcome for a large number of interpreters, who have established ties to their local social security system.
47. It is not clear how the administration can speak on behalf of the interpreters with “may” statements. In view of the Town Hall meetings held with interpreters, the administration should be able to say clearly what the latter think about it.
48. This alternative is presented by the administration as causing legal status issues and double insurance issues and unclarity in case of responsibilities. However, the revised document is still not explaining them.
Alternative 2: Offering a separate affiliation to a specific social security system
49. This alternative would consist in providing the interpreters with a similar coverage under an external solution via e.g. insurance companies. This solution would not create any long- term liabilities for the EPO. The external solution would need to be deemed adequate and agreed by each national authority of the nine Contracting States in which interpreters reside.
50. The revised document (par. 27) however pretends that the costs would still be higher than for the proposed model with “framework contracts”. However, the table (par. 36) mentions that the costs would remain between 2.9 M€ to 3.6 M€ per year while the model based on “framework contracts” is estimated at 2.87 M€. The difference in costs is not as dramatic as the administration implies it is.
51. The table (par. 36) assumes a health insurance premium in the range of 6.000 € to 9.000 € per person per year. The calculation for pension and long-term care are however not detailed.
52. According to our information, other International Organisations employing interpreters generally make an employer's contribution in the region of 13% of daily remuneration to a private insurance scheme. It is hard to see how this could be more expensive than the fee increases (+40%) and preparation fee of 150 € foreseen under the new “framework contracts” model.
53. The statements made in the document about the financial implications are incomplete and not convincing.
Alternatives 1 or 2 in other International Organisations
54. The revised document (par. 4) admits that several European institutions (e.g. the European Union and the Council of Europe) offer employment conditions broadly similar to those of the EPO in many respects, but with one major difference: they include elements of social security for external interpreters.
55. There is no explanation as to why what is possible in the European institutions and the Council of Europe is not possible at the EPO, and how the EPO differs from these.
56. In the GCC meeting of 10 July 2024, Employment Law explained that the European Commission and the Council of Europe told the EPO that a complementary insurance for external interpreters is “a mess that the EPO should not do”.
Alternative 3: Terminating the contract of interpreters in the relevant Contracting State
57. The revised document explains (par. 30) that this would entail legal risks and appear at odds with the Office’s values and legal requirement to “recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of the Contracting States” (Article 5(1) ServRegs).
58. The EPO is presently not offering employment conditions which are sufficient to attract job applicants from Nordic countries despite recruitment requirements having been lowered. We see nothing being undertaken to remedy the situation. Higher positions remain essentially attributed to employees coming from the talent pipeline from Alicante.
59. When the Netherlands had concerns with the Young Professionals program, the administration refrained from recruiting Young Professionals from the Netherlands. The administration had no issue with discrimination in that case. Currently, the situation remains highly unbalanced: there are 130 Young Professionals in Munich and only 18 in The Hague.
60. Experience shows that the EPO sees no issue in not respecting its principles in the practice. The reasons why the EPO is rejecting this alternative are therefore to be found elsewhere.
Conclusion
The CSC members in the GCC are asked to provide an opinion on a document which insufficiently informs the GCC members. The problematic provision justifying the need for the reform is not disclosed. The legal and fiscal assessments are not provided. The content of the discussions with the Dutch authorities is not revealed.
The reasons for the change were never explained. The alternatives were mentioned with the sole purpose of setting them aside.
For the above reasons, the CSC members of the GCC can only be negative about the document.
The CSC members of the GCC
Comment of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 10/2024:
Temporary catering services in BerlinThe CSC members of the GCC make the following comment on document GCC/DOC 10/2024.
First of all, the CSC members of the GCC recognise the work of the colleagues in the General Administration in finding a temporary alternative for the catering services in Berlin. The circumstances were difficult because the previous service provider Smunch stopped its services at very short notice. In addition, the administrative requirements of the Office, for example with regard to the subsidy system, appear to be so complex that they created additional hurdles and only a few catering services could fulfil them.
Nevertheless, the CSC members of the GCC would like to emphasise that a food delivery service is by no means an adequate replacement for an on-site canteen. The Strategic Plan 2028 states that the EPO will support sustainable staff engagement. The focus is on an improved working environment by connecting colleagues face-to- face. Well-being, collaboration and sense of togetherness are important keywords in the corresponding sections. No one will doubt that a canteen is an important place for connecting colleagues, for informal discussions and socialising. It is therefore completely incomprehensible and inconsistent that the Office currently only has on- site canteens in Munich and The Hague. While an on-site canteen is planned in the new building in Vienna, this is not the case in Berlin.
While the previous catering service provided by Smunch could – as a delivery service – only be second class compared to an on-site canteen, it is now to be feared that the new service provider Wolt will fall short in yet another aspect. As the lunch is no longer delivered at the same time, it will hardly be possible for colleagues to have lunch together. The concept that meals will be delivered to the reception desk, then brought to the old canteen room by Facility Management at 12:00, 12:30, and 13:00 hrs and to provide a microwave appears inadequate in this respect. The CSC members of the GCC request that the accrual rate for compensation hours provided for in Article 5(4) of the Guidelines on arrangements for working hours be increased from 15 to 30 minutes to compensate for these unfavourable circumstances and the time lost.
During the transition period between 12 April 2024 and 15 July 2024, there was no catering service at all in the Berlin sub-office. The CSC members of the GCC can only deplore the fact that not even a symbolic gesture, such as a sporadic breakfast or not even a fruit basket, could be provided during this period. The Office should always bear in mind that the service provided to staff can influence their attitude, both positively and negatively. It is with this in mind that one should read the last sentence of the document again, which states that the “catering options for our new location [in Berlin] will be reassessed during Q3/Q4 of this year.” So now is the time to think about how a first time right principle can be applied at the new building inter alia for the catering service. Yes, it will be necessary to go the extra mile to find an adequate solution which is in line with the cited goals of the Strategic Plan 2028.
If it is impossible to have an on-site canteen with its own kitchen in the new building in Berlin for architectural reasons, then there should at least be a catered canteen in the rented premises offering for example two externally prepared meals, a salad bar, and breakfast options. A food ordering service will always remain a second-class service. A concept with restaurant vouchers may even be the better second-class solution.
Finally, the CSC members of the GCC would like to emphasise that Staff Representatives are prepared to discuss pragmatic solutions. The envisaged solution to have discounts of a fixed amount for delivered meals instead of a percentage is already a good example for such a pragmatic solution. This is something to build on in the interests of the Berlin staff.
The CSC members of the GCC
There are loads of interesting bits in the text above, which is extensive yet sort of punctual. To quote 58 onwards from the second item on the agenda: "The EPO is presently not offering employment conditions which are sufficient to attract job applicants from Nordic countries despite recruitment requirements having been lowered. We see nothing being undertaken to remedy the situation. Higher positions remain essentially attributed to employees coming from the talent pipeline from Alicante. When the Netherlands had concerns with the Young Professionals program, the administration refrained from recruiting Young Professionals from the Netherlands. The administration had no issue with discrimination in that case. Currently, the situation remains highly unbalanced: there are 130 Young Professionals in Munich and only 18 in The Hague."
So the EPO, Europe's second-largest institution, is basically circling down the drain. The circling was slowed a little by the 40+ years of reputation the EPO had gained. But the goodwill is gone and many experienced, valuable examiners are also gone. They won't be returning, ever. █