Incompetent Patent Office (EPO) Trying to Blame Examiners (Whom It Orders to Illegally Grant European Patents)
EPO STAFF representation from the legitimately and democratically elected staff committee (unlike EPO management, where appointments are made based on bribes and nepotism [1, 2]), or more specifically the Local Staff Committee The Hague (LSCTH), has circulated a new communication among staff, raising concerns about the self-described, self-styled "incompetence procedure" (a bit like a CoC banhammer for EPO management). We published leaks related to it earlier this year and also explained why the real EPO incompetence is high up at the top-level management (see "EPO Run by Completely and Totally Incompetent and Irresponsible People"). The EPO of today strives to increase "profits" (i.e. granting more monopolies) by lowering the quality of patents, staff, and services. Compliance with the law does not matter to these people, it's just viewed as a nuisance and obstruction. Guardrails? No, thanks!
Anyway, here is the full communication, accompanied by flowcharts:
Dear colleagues,
Circular 397 states: “Cases of professional incompetence are exceptionally rare, and the Office actively seeks to avoid, as far as possible, the need to initiate procedures to deal with them.” Still, we have been made aware that a couple of colleagues are presently submitted to an incompetence procedure.
In light of this development, we would like to remind staff:
That should you find yourself, or suspect you may be in the same situation, we suggest that you contact us as soon as possible to enable us to assist in the most effective manner;
Advise any colleague around you who you think might be in this situation to contact us as soon as possible;
Check your yearly performance report for wording such as “insufficient”, “unacceptable”, “incompetence”, “far below the expected level” or the mention of Articles 52, 53a,b ServRegs and/or Circular 397.
In our experience, medical reasons (physical and/or psychological) are often intimately linked to performance that is considered unsatisfactory. They can even be triggered or worsened by measures imposed by line management, yet these medical reasons are not appropriately considered by the Office. If this is the case, it is crucial that OHS is informed as it is an important factor in the rightful prevention of an incompetence procedure. We have received the feedback that being assisted by a staff representative is also of great help in the face of such difficulties.
An overview of the incompetence procedure is provided in annex below. This document provides further information.
Kind regards,
Your Local Staff Committee the Hague (LSCTH)
ANNEX:
Relevant CODEX passages: Articles 52, 53a,b ServRegs and Circular 397.
Abbreviations: PIP: Professional Incompetence Procedure, JC: Joint Committee
Pay careful attention to use (or amuse/misuse) of terms like “insufficient”, “unacceptable”, “incompetence”, and “far below the expected level”. Companies (not the EPO) love using these as excuses for not meeting basic obligations to staff, such as severance. █