General Consultative Committee (GCC) Meeting at the European Patent Office (EPO) Shows Existing Problems
THE Central Staff Committee (CSC) component of the General Consultative Committee (GCC) at the EPO released a 24-page report about a week ago (it's dated exactly a week ago), raising a wide range of labour issues and helping to shed light on EPO affairs. This meeting report, which we alluded to earlier today, comes in PDF form, but we have an HTML/GemText/plain text version of it today.
Here's the full thing, starting with an index of the issues discussed/raised/informally voted on.
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du PersonnelMunich, 05-12-2024
sc24070cpReport on the GCC meeting of
19 November 2024Dear Colleagues, The General Consultative Committee (GCC) met by videoconference on 19 November 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:
• Skills Framework, update to Circular 365 – for consultation GCC/DOC 15/2024
• Adjustment with effect from 1 January 2025 of salaries and other elements of the remuneration of employees of the European Patent Office and of pensions paid by the Office – for consultation GCC/DOC 16/2024
• Revision with effect from 1 January 2025 of the rates of the daily subsistence allowance – for consultation GCC/DOC 17/2024
• Annual adjustment of young child allowance and education allowance with effect from 1 January 2025 – for consultation GCC/DOC 18/2024
• Amendment to the Annex of Circular 319 - Revision with effect from 1 January 2025 of the rates of the kilometric allowance – for consultation GCC/DOC 19/2024
• Amendment to the Annex of Circular 326 - Revision with effect from 1 January 2025 of the rates of the lump sum compensation of removal expenses – for consultation GCC/DOC 20/2024
• Healthcare related circulars (Part 12 of Codex) – for consultation GCC/DOC 21/2024
• Periodical review of Circular 368 (Guide to cover) under the healthcare insurance scheme – for consultation GCC/DOC 22/2024
• Revised CA document on periodical review 2024 – for consultation GCC/DOC 23/2024
• Orientation on recruitment CA/100 – for information GCC/DOC 24/2024
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 15/2024
Skills framework, update to Circular 365The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the Skills framework, update to Circular 365 in GCC/DOC 15/2024.
The document replaces the former General Guidelines on the EPO Competency Framework (Circular 365) which were unchanged since their introduction on 19 December 2014.
On the consultation
1. On 2 October 2024, the administration invited the Central Staff Committee (CSC) to nominate 5-6 experts to Technical Meetings on a revised version of Circular 365.
2. On 11 October, the CSC nominated 6 experts.
3. On 15 October, the administration sent to the CSC nominees a presentation providing no details on the foreseen changes.
4. On 18 October, a first technical meeting took place.
5. On 24 October, the administration sent a draft Circular 365 on the “Talent Management Framework” and a link to the Skills Management Ilearn website: http://q/skillsdevelopment
6. On 28 October, the administration published an Intranet Communiqué announcing that the skills framework was already being implemented progressively since 2021 at the back of staff and their representation. The Communiqué also acknowledges that staff representation is consulted at the very end for formally integrating skills in Circular 365, thereby confirming that the staff representation is put in front of a fait accompli.
7. On 29 October, a second technical meeting took place.
8. On 4 November, the administration tabled in the GCC the document GCC/DOC 15/2024.
9. On 19 November, the meeting of the General Consultative Committee (GCC) took place.
On the merits
The competency framework is dead…
10. The competency framework was introduced in 2015 in the context fear and retaliation prevailing at that time. It also suffered from a systemic failure right from the beginning.
11. Indeed, in Judgment 4723, consideration 9, on a complaint filed by an EPO employee against his appraisal report for 2015, the Tribunal noted “that the failure in this case to assess core competencies was a systemic failure and applied to the assessment of all examiners in the EPO in 2015.” and in consideration 6 that “[t]he complainant’s contention
that his appraisal report is substantively flawed because none of his “core competencies” was assessed in breach of the EPO’s own rules is well founded.”
12. In the following years, this flaw was formally corrected but the adoption of the project did not improve. The workload on Team Managers has continuously increased. The goal setting, the review meetings and the reward exercise are time consuming tasks and come on top of the core tasks. The recently introduced three rounds of review meetings (Circular 366) and the additional reward exercises for bonuses (Circular 364) made the situation worse.
13. As a result, Team Managers have no time to properly assess the competencies of their team members and the competency framework was hardly ever used anymore.
14. In our view, less review meetings would allow to have better review meetings.
15. In DG1, experience has shown that there is one competency which is required from examiners, namely production and productivity. No other competency seems to have sufficient weight to change the outcome of the appraisal exercise.
16. At the time of its introduction, the competency framework was advertised as a means for an individual development plan. In practice, the implementation of the appraisal exercise is done not to develop staff but to avoid staff progression.
… long live the skills framework
17. The administration is now trying to revive the competency framework by rebranding it under the name skills.
18. The former Circular 365 of 16 pages is now trimmed to 2 pages and 2 lines. Employment Law explained that the idea was to separate in the Circular the normative, namely the general rules, from the informative, namely the implementation of the rules.
19. We disagree. It is the Service Regulations which should define the general rules and the Circular should be extensive on the implementation. The administration is unduly shifting the levels of granularity and does not go into the direction of clarity but rather sets a new basis for arbitrariness.
20. In advance of the second Technical Meeting, the administration invited us to have a look at the Skills Management Ilearn website: http://q/skillsdevelopment containing:
• Introduction on Skills Management
• FAQ Skills Management
• Data protection statement
• Skills catalogue
• Technology Skills Examiner
• General Skills
• Skill sets of job profiles
• Skills overview People Managers
• How to use the lists with recommended development activities for your skills
21. In our view consultation via hyperlinks is not proper consultation. As a matter of example, the FAQ Skills Management explicitly mentions: “This is a living document” So what is the staff representation consulted upon if it can change anytime?
22. The presentation of the information is cumbersome from an ergonomical point and it is difficult to navigate through it. For instance, the FAQ Skills Management is uploaded on the Rise platform essentially based on scripts and is spanned over different pages where one needs to manually click to Expand the questions and get the answers.
23. In terms of web design, information which is text should be text and fully presented in one page and a simple Ctrl+F should also allow a search very fast.
24. The General Skills including management skills is an Excel sheets converted to PDF which can be changed anytime. The latest version of these skills is dated 22 April 2022. The Technology Skills Examiner are presented in the same format and dated June 2022.
25. We are surprised that such documents existed more than 2 years ago already but the administration had no time to provide them to us before October 2024.
26. Technology skills for examiners account for 48 pages of CPC classes. We understand it is difficult to annex it to Circular 365 as indeed CPC classes can evolve. However, a reference in Circular 365 that Technology skills are CPC classes would be already helpful.
27. General skills are 5 pages long. The latter can and should be part of an annex and the staff representation should be consulted about it.
28. As a matter of example as to why General skills should be discussed, the People Manager’s skills mention in level 3:
“Fosters bottom-up communication; Creates accountability and recognises achievement when it happens; Actively guides others to communicate efficiently”29. What we see in practice are emails from managers merely mentioning: “This tool will be decommissioned. Decision was taken and no argument will change anything.” Or as another example: “Classification is automated via AI. Don’t ask me why. I was informed on the same day as you.”
30. There is a gap between the skills drafted and what the Office actually does.
Conclusion
The competency framework turned out to be a dead duck. The skills framework is now presented as a living document started in 2021 at the back of staff and their representation.
Time will tell whether this attempt to revive and rebrand competencies as skills will be fruitful. For the time being, staff and their representation is not convinced, and we do not see in the current Office policies new conditions allowing this project to be a success.
For the above reasons, the CSC members of the GCC can only be negative about the document.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 16/2024:
Adjustment with effect from 1 January 2025 of salaries and other elements of the remuneration of permanent employees of the European Patent Office and of pensions paid by the Office
The adjustment of salaries and other elements of the remuneration of permanent employees of the EPO and of pensions paid by the Office is the appropriate transfer of the decisions of the national parliaments on the salary adjustment of national civil servants to the EPO. The CSC members of the GCC note with regret that the implementation of such a statistical tool has been a matter of dispute for many years now. This is all the more regrettable given that salary adjustment methods in almost all other International Organisations and Intergovernmental Organisations are designed to be precise, clear and uncontroversial so as to have the general approval of management and staff. The criticism of the present document for the EPO falls into three main groups: violation of basic legal principles, violation of the Implementing Rule of Article 64 ServRegs, procedural deficiencies.
Violation of basic legal principles
The proposed salary tables violate the principle of equal treatment.
Colleagues in the same salary group and step are entitled to equal pay, regardless of where they are employed. What is meant by equal pay is expressed by the coefficients of purchasing power parity (PPPs) listed in Table 6. They were calculated and recommended by the International Service for Remuneration and Pensions and are to be followed according to Article 64(6) ServRegs.
This principle of equal pay is, however, violated, as the following example shows. The basic salary of a colleague in JG 6 at the end of their career amounts to the value according to grade 9, step 5 (G9-5) in the salary table for the respective place of employment. The G9-5 salary in Austria according to Table 4 amounts to EUR 9.124,73. The equal pay in the Netherlands is to be derived according to the PPPs in Table 6, which are 1,0448 for (AT) and 1,1044 (NL). It follows that the G9-5 salary in the Netherlands should amount to EUR 9.124,72 / 1,0448 * 1,1044 ≈ EUR 9.777,12. However, the amount listed for the G9-5 salary in the Netherlands according to Table 2 EUR 9.508,45. This is EUR 171,74 less that the due amount according to equal pay. This significant discrepancy is not caused by rounding errors, but it is a severe violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Such discrepancies occur mutatis mutandis for all entries (all combinations of grades and steps) in Table 1 (Belgium), Table 2 (Germany) and Table 3 (Netherlands) when compared to the respective entries in Table 4 (Austria). This means that there is a systematic violation of the principle of equal pay and thus of equal treatment for the colleagues at the different places of employment. This inequality even extends to the further scales used for pensions, to which Article 2 of Part II of the document refers.
The Staff Representative members of the GCC SSPR appointed by the Central Staff Committee (“Staff Representatives”) note the following issues in this year's application of the salary adjustment procedure:
The proposed salary tables result from an unstable and unforeseeable calculation.
This year, in the second year of the present 3-year period, the increase in salary mass according to the adjustments calculated by the underlying methodology (4.6%) was above the sustainability clause cap indexed to the annual Eurozone inflation +0.2% (erroneously [see below] calculated at 2.700%), and thus the adjustments in all places of employment were cut by 42%.
Last year, in the first year of the present 3-year period, the increase in salary mass according to the adjustments calculated by underlying methodology (3.6%) was below the sustainability clause cap indexed to the annual Eurozone inflation +0.2% (erroneously [see below] calculated at 5.700%), and thus no cut was made. Since it was the first year of the 3-year period, the pool is necessarily empty, and no top-up to the cap could be made.
It is noted that had these two calculations occurred in the opposite order (i.e. the first year adjustments being above the cap and the second year below the cap), the cumulative 2 year adjustment would have been significantly different. In such a case, what had been reserved in the pool would have been utilised to top-up the adjustment amounts and would have been returned to the salary scales (strongly favourable to staff), rather than being paid out in a one-off lump sum (significantly detrimental to staff). This results in an arbitrary factor impacting the salary adjustments, and creates an issue with the foreseeability and stability of the salary adjustment method, as not only the economic situation of a given year will impact the adjustments, but also the order in which those situations occur and which year of the 3-year period the calculation is being made in.
Violation of the Implementing Rule for Article 64 ServRegs
Article 2 – Annual adjustment of the reference scale: Belgium
The CSC members of the GCC make the observation that when applying Article 2 of the Implementing Rule for Article 64 of the Service Regulations for Permanent and Other Employees of the European Patent Office (“Implementing Rule”) those basic salary scales for Belgium as presented in Table 7 of CA/D 21/23 were erroneously taken into account as basis for the present calculation. It would have been correct to take the basic salary scales for Belgium as presented in Table 1 of CA/D 21/23 into account as basis for the present calculation.
Article 2 of CA/D 21/23 defines that “[w]ith effect from 1 January 2024, the monthly salary scales in Annex III A to the Service Regulations shall be replaced by the scales shown in Tables 1 to 4 annexed to this decision [CA/D 21/23] […]”. Furthermore, it is prescribed there that “the monthly salary scale applied for Belgium (Table 1) shall remain the same as the one in force as of 1 January 2023.” The Annex III A to the Service Regulations as of January 2024 thus correctly shows the gross and basic
monthly salary scales for Belgium according to Table 1 of CA/D 21/23, not those of Table 7.
Article 2(1) of the Implementing Rule defines that “[w]ith effect from 1 January [2025], the basic salary scale and allowance amounts set out in Annex III to the Service Regulations and applicable for Belgium are adjusted by a percentage corresponding to the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices calculated for that country, corrected by the index for remuneration trends in the central government services of the reference countries (‘specific indicator’), calculated in accordance with the procedure described in Article 3.” It follows that the amounts set out for Belgium in Annex III to the Service Regulations are to be taken into account as basis for the present calculation. These are the values from Table 1 of CA/D 21/23, not those of Table 7.
This is further emphasised by the fact that Article 2(2) of the Implementing Rule explicitly states that “[t]his percentage adjustment is applied to the basic salary scale and allowance amounts in force as at 1 January of the current year.” The basic salary scales set out for Belgium in Annex III to the Service Regulations, which are those of Table 1 of CA/D 21/23 are unambiguously those that were in force as at 1 January 2024. Therefore, this confirms that the values from Table 1 of CA/D 21/23 are to be taken into account as basis for the present calculation, i.e. for the application of the percentage adjustment.
In consequence, Article 2 of the Implementing Rule for Article 64 ServRegs was incorrectly implemented when calculating the salary scales in the present document. As they are lower than they should have been according to a correct implementation, this is to the detriment of staff and pensioners.
Article 9(1) – Sustainability clause: overall growth … shall be limited to that indexed to annual Eurozone inflation +0.2%
Furthermore, the CSC members of the GCC make the observation that there are ambiguities as to the calculation of the capping on the overall growth in the basic salary mass defined in the sustainability clause. Article 9(1) of the Implementing Rule reads: “The overall growth in the basic salary mass resulting from the salary adjustment procedure described under Chapter II shall be limited to that indexed to annual Eurozone inflation +0.2% as at 1 July of the calculation year. […]” The Eurozone inflation on 1 July 2024 was indexed at 102.5. With the defined “+0.2%” the limit is to be calculated at 102.5 * 1.002 = 102.705. The rounded-off result of 102.700 taken by the administration is wrong and to the disadvantage of staff.
If the legislator’s intention had been to simply add 0.2 to the indexed inflation, the wording would have been “increased by 0.2 percentage points” or “increased by 20 bps” or similar, but not “indexed to annual Eurozone inflation +0.2%”. The argument presented during the consultation of the GCC that the plus sign in “+0,2%” would unambiguously prescribe an addition is misleading and erroneous. The plus sign in front of a percentage is conventionally read as the sign of the number, not as an indication for addition. This is also confirmed by the typography, because there is no space between the plus sign and the percentage. In other places in the Service Regulations, a space is placed before and after the plus sign for an addition.
If the correct limit of 102.705 corresponding to Article 9(1) of the Implementing Rule had been used, the reduction percentage would have been only –41.7%, and not – 41.8%. Ambiguities in the Implementing Rule must not be interpreted to the detriment of the staff. In this respect, the use of the cap of 102.700 is wrong and thus also the deduction of –41.8%.
In consequence, Article 9(1) of the Implementing Rule for Article 64 ServRegs was incorrectly implemented when calculating the salary scales in the present document. As they are lower than they should have been according to a correct implementation, this is to the detriment of staff and pensioners.
Article 9(3) – Sustainability clause: the salary adjustment percentage of all basic salary scales and allowances … shall be reduced in the same proportion
The following table lists some sample values from the calculation of the salary scales. The table shows the values for the G17-1 entry before and after the application of the sustainability clause, together with the purchasing power parities (PPPs) for the respective Contracting States. The table is sorted in ascending order of PPP.
It is quantitatively striking that before the application of the sustainability clause, the PPPs are respected. But after the application of the sustainability clause, the PPP are no longer adhered to. For example, the value for the G17-1 salary in the Netherlands is in the same ratio (20.587 to 19.476 ≈ 1.057) to the value for the G17-1 salary for Austria as 1.1044 is to 1.0448 (≈ 1.057). This does not apply to both salaries after the application of the sustainability clause (20.243 to 19.426 ≈ 1.042). This means that after the application of the sustainability clause, the purchasing power of the salaries in the Netherlands and in Austria is no longer the same. The principle of equal treatment for staff in the Netherlands and in Austria is thus violated. As a further example, it can be seen for the value of France that before the sustainability clause the PPP value was adhered to (21.099 / 18.640 ≈ 1.1319). After the application of the sustainability clause, however, it is no longer the same but different (20.867 / 18.053 ≈ 1.1559). This applies mutatis mutandis also to the salaries of other Contracting States. And the scales for Contracting States with a high price increase, such as Turkey, are particularly affected.
In particular, it is striking from a qualitative point of view that after the application of the sustainability clause, the salaries for Germany are lower than the salaries for Finland,
although a higher PPP is given for Germany than for Finland. This shows a fundamental error in the application of the sustainability clause. It is defined in Article 9(3) of the Implementing Rule that the reduction should be “in the same proportion”. If the reduction had been proportional, the order should not have changed.
In follows that Article 9(3) of the Implementing Rule for Article 64 ServRegs was incorrectly implemented when calculating the salary scales in the present document. As they are lower than they should have been according to a correct implementation, this is to the detriment of staff and pensioners.
Article 9(4) – Sustainability clause: any remainder … resulting from the calculated adjustment and the limit
The CSC members of the GCC make the observation that the report defines a percentage that “will be set aside into the redistribution pool (4.6% - 2.7% = 1.9%)”. The last time a percentage was set aside into the redistribution pool was for the salary adjustment calculated in 2021 that was applied as of 1 January 2022. In the report of that year, and in paragraphs 27 and 28 of CA/71/21 submitted to the Administrative Council, the redistribution pool percentages are listed as separate values for each of the places of employment. This change of practice is concerning, and it has not been addressed in the report.
The Staff Representatives inquired in both the meeting with the administration on 14 October 2024, and in the meeting with the Advisory Group on Remuneration on 15 October 2024 as to what percentages were assigned to the redistribution pool and how the potential lump sum will be calculated. The Staff Representatives were left with absolutely no clarity as to the process to be followed.
The persistent refusal of the administration to discuss the periodic settlement in years other than the one in which it would be paid leads to a failure to provide a salary adjustment method that is foreseeable. It is accepted that the final amount of the lump sum that is to be paid according to the periodic settlement is not known until the third year of each 3-year period. However, it does not absolve the requirement to make clear the calculation that is to be made in order to determine the amount of the lump sum.
After five years of the new salary method being in force, the Staff Representation still remains completely in the dark as to how the administration will decide to interpret and implement the one-sentence periodic settlement defined in Article 10(1) of the Implementing Rules. The administration presented upon request the following figures during the consultation of the GCC: 0.26% (AT), 3.1% (BE), 2,1% (DE), 1,7% (NL). These values could, however, not be verified ad hoc by the CSC members of the GCC.
In follows that Article 9(4) of the Implementing Rule for Article 64 ServRegs and its implementation remains unclear.
Procedural deficiencies
The CSC members of the GCC took note that the meeting of the Staff Representatives with the Advisory Group on Renumerations on 15 October 2024 was affected by pre-
emptive answers and interruptions from the administration. The Central Staff Committee thus asked in writing for further information on the Advisory Group on Remuneration to be provided to the GCC. According to Article 1(3) of the Implementing Rule, the President obtains confirmation from independent experts, appointed by him, that it [the annual adjustment proposal] is consistent with the provisions of this rule.
The Advisory Group on Remuneration uses in essential parts of their report to the President a different terminology than that used in the Implementing Rule. The report reads for example in section 29 of the document (last but one paragraph of page 6): “all salary scale increases are reduced by the same proportion” although Article 9(3) of the Implementing Rule, however, stipulates that the “salary adjustment percentage of all basic salary scales and allowances (scales referred to in Article 4 and the scale for Belgium) shall be reduced in the same proportion”.
The report reads in section 49 of the document: “Article 9 (the sustainability clause) of the procedure limits the weighted average of the salary increases to Eurozone HICP + 0.2% spread.” Article 9(1) of the Implementing Rule, however, stipulates that “[t]he overall growth in the basic salary mass resulting from the salary adjustment procedure described under Chapter II shall be limited to that indexed to annual Eurozone inflation +0.2%”. The term “spread” is not used in the Implementing Rule at all.
The Advisory Group on Remuneration furthermore does not address in their report to the President their legal and/or actuarial analysis on the critical points addressed by the Staff Representative, such as some items listed in the above section “Violation of the Implementing Rule of Article 64 ServRegs”.
The Chair of the GCC has asked that the CSC members of the GCC members reconsider their position vis-à-vis the Advisory Group on Remuneration. It should therefore be emphasised that the CSC members of the GCC do not in any way doubt the personal integrity of members of the group. The members deserve the utmost respect for their “professional experience, which is largely available online” as pointed out to the GCC by the administration in their response of 18 November 2024 to the letter by the CSC. In this response, the administrative confirmed with reference to Article 1 of the Implementing Rule for Article 64 ServRegs that “their assignment with the Office is limited to this yearly verification”. The response does not contain any information about an exclusion or limitation of liability for the expert opinion. Concerning the members of the Advisory Group on Remuneration, the CSC had explicitly asked about their membership of actuarial associations. The response does not provide any confirmation of such membership.
Article 2 of Part II of the document refers to salary scales “drawn up in accordance with Article 4 of the salary adjustment procedure by making use of the coefficients of purchasing power parity shown in Table 6 annexed to this decision”. The CSC members of the GCC members note that this regulation is unclear. The request to attach these scales to the document for clarification was not fulfilled.
The CSC members of the GCC come to the conclusion that the proposed adjustment with effect from 1 January 2025 of salaries and other elements of the remuneration of permanent employees of the European Patent Office and of pensions paid by the Office is in violation of basic legal principles, based on an incorrect implementation of
the Implementing Rule for Article 64 ServRegs and impaired by procedural deficiencies. In particular, the adjustment is too low and the handling of the redistribution pool remains unclear.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 17/2024:
Revision with effect from 1 January 2025 of the rates of the daily subsistence allowance
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the revision proposed in GCC/DOC 17/2024.
The proposed revision of the daily subsistence allowance is based on the arithmetic average of the rate of the annual salary adjustment for Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. The salary adjustments calculated for 2025 is in violation of basic legal principles, it could not be understood as an implementation of Article 64 ServRegs according to the official Implementation Rule and it is impaired by formal deficits, which is further outlined in the opinion on GCC/DOC 16/2024.
The CSC members of the GCC are therefore of the opinion that the proposed revision suffers from the same deficiencies as the underlying annual salary adjustments for Austria, Germany and the Netherlands for 2025.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 18/2024:
Annual adjustment of young child allowance and education allowance with effect from 1 January 2025
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the annual adjustment proposed in GCC/DOC 18/2024.
The proposed annual adjustment of young child allowance and education allowance with effect from 1 January 2025 is based on the arithmetic average of the rate of the annual salary adjustment for Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. The salary adjustments calculated for 2025 is in violation of basic legal principles, it could not be understood as an implementation of Article 64 ServRegs according to the official Implementation Rule and it is impaired by formal deficits, which is further outlined in the opinion on GCC/DOC 16/2024.
The CSC members of the GCC are therefore of the opinion that the proposed annual adjustment suffers from the same deficiencies as the underlying annual salary adjustments for Austria, Germany and the Netherlands for 2025.
The CSC members of the GCC have pointed out several times that such a methodology based on the arithmetic average of said adjustments is unfit to deliver adequate outcome. In particular, the allowances shown in Table IV related to the Education and Childcare Allowance are the ones suffering most from this calculation. For instance, the ceilings to be applied in the Netherlands are influenced by the results of the salary adjustment for Austria.
This adjustment violates fundamental principles. It goes against equal treatment as it affects unequally staff in different PoE since they have different inflation in education. It also violates the duty of care as staff in lower grades are more severely affected. This adjustment specially affects TH that was already very strongly negatively affected by the reform. In TH the education inflation is extremely high this year and it accumulates over the past years that was also rather high. Therefore, the gap between real costs and the allowance is increasing very fast.
Regarding the adjustment on the ceilings, it is posing a new problem for the colleagues and the administration as the international schools are steadily falling into the requirements for the transitional measures.
Furthermore, Table IV prescribes that: “Amounts will be reviewed regularly to take into account the evolution of childcare and education costs at the respective places of employment.” For several years the CSC members of the GCC have regularly requested a review to account for the evolution of the real education costs in each place of employment.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 19/2024:
Amendment to the Annex of Circular 319 – Revision with effect from 1 January 2025 of the rates of the kilometric allowance
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the revision proposed in GCC/DOC 19/2024.
The proposed revision of the rates of the kilometric allowance is based on the arithmetic average of the rate of the annual salary adjustment for Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. The salary adjustments calculated for 2025 is in violation of basic legal principles, it could not be understood as an implementation of Article 64 ServRegs according to the official Implementation Rule and it is impaired by formal deficits, which is further outlined in the opinion on GCC/DOC 16/2024.
The CSC members of the GCC are therefore of the opinion that the proposed revision suffers from the same deficiencies as the underlying annual salary adjustments for Austria, Germany and the Netherlands for 2025.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 20/2024:
Amendment to the Annex of Circular 326 – Revision with effect from 1 January 2025 of the rates of the lump sum compensation of removal expenses
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the revision proposed in GCC/DOC 20/2024.
The proposed revision of the rates of the lump sum compensation of removal expenses is based on the arithmetic average of the rate of the annual salary adjustment for Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. The salary adjustments calculated for 2025 is in violation of basic legal principles, it could not be understood as an implementation of Article 64 ServRegs according to the official Implementation Rule and it is impaired by formal deficits, which is further outlined in the opinion on GCC/DOC 16/2024.
The CSC members of the GCC are therefore of the opinion that the proposed revision suffers from the same deficiencies as the underlying annual salary adjustments for Austria, Germany and the Netherlands for 2025.
The CSC members of the GCC
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on
GCC/DOC 21/2024: Healthcare related circulars (Part 12 of Codex)
and
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on
GCC/DOC 22/2024: Periodical review of Circular 368 (Guide to
cover) under the healthcare insurance schemeThe staff representation met with the administration on three occasions to discuss the updates to the guide to cover. During the first meeting in February, both the staff representation and administration supported by the health advisors shared suggestions on areas of improvement in our guide to cover. In the meeting in July, we were presented with a first draft of the amendments to the guide to cover, on which we shared our feedback both during the meeting and in writing. The third meeting saw a final draft of the guide, in which many of the staff representation suggestions had been taken on board.
We thank the Office in particular for having considered the business case that provided arguments for the inclusion of cover for contraception. This has been a request from the staff representation for the last three reviews of the guide to cover, and we are happy to see that it is now been taken on board, so that our staff members can benefit from the extended cover that acknowledges reproductive health as an essential part of healthcare.
Other points where the input from staff representation was implemented is in the final draft were amendments to the description of a medical report to encompass the specifics of the Dutch healthcare system, prior approval for urgent transport of transplants, and additional clarification and examples for genetic tests, digital health apps, and chemical peeling.
Regarding the healthcare related circulars, we detail two issues. In circular 81, which regulates the preventative medical examination, the choice was made not to alter the maximum amount that is reimbursed to staff members who choose to undergo a preventative medical examination outside of the in-house organised examinations. We were told that maximum reimbursement of 400 euros is only one third of the cost of the in-house examination. We are of the opinion that this is impacting upon the freedom of choice of the healthcare provider, since it provides a system that strongly favours the in-house examination.
Secondly, we identified that for circular 260, that regulates post-natal care in the home, the ceiling did not appear to have been accurately calculated as the change in 6 years was only 16%, which was significantly lower than the expected value. In a joint effort, we came to the conclusion that there had been an error in the choice of annual adjustment value. Despite the circular stating that the HICP of the EU in October is the value with which to adjust the ceiling annually, in fact various other values had been provided by Cigna, such as the health component of the HICP, and an average of HICPs. The correct value has now been calculated, including the value of EU HICP for October 2024. We understand that a review was done to check for colleagues who had exceeded this ceiling in the years when an incorrect value was defined in the circular, and that Cigna have been requested to reimburse colleagues by any amounts that were incorrectly calculated. As the GCC/DOC was not amended to reflect this realisation, we also remind the administration to correct this value in the final version of the circular.
To conclude, while there are still outstanding areas of disagreement between the staff representation and the administration, the process of the review was conducted in a
respectful manner and suggestions in the most-part were duly considered. We hope that future discussions on these topics can continue this way.
For the above reasons, the CSC members of the GCC are positive about the document GCC/DOC 21/2024 and the CSC members of the GCC are positive about the document GCC/DOC 22/2024.
The CSC members of the GCC.
Opinion of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 23/2024: Revised CA document on periodical review 2024 of the Service Regulations
The CSC members of the GCC give the following opinion on the Revised CA document on periodical review 2024 of the Service Regulations in GCC/DOC 23/2024 (CA/64/24, Rev. 1).
The document is a revised version of former GCC/DOC 8/2024 (CA/64/24) which was initially tabled for the 180th meeting of the Administrative Council of 10 and 11 October 2024 (CA/61/24) and later removed from the agenda just before the meeting.
On the consultation
1. The content of the former document GCC/DOC 8/2024 was discussed in a technical meeting which took place on 19 June 2024 and in a meeting of the General Consultative Committee (GCC) on 10 July 2024.
2. On Monday 4 November, the administration tabled in the GCC, the revised document GCC/DOC 23/2024 (CA/64/24, Rev. 1).
3. The administration did not deem it necessary to organise a Technical Meeting with the revised document in advance.
4. On 19 November 2024, the meeting of the General Consultative Committee (GCC) took place.
On the merits
5. The present opinion focuses on the changes made from the previous version of the document, namely in section 2.2, “Amendment aimed at administrative simplification” relating to Annex I to the Service Regulations containing the table of Job Groups, Job Titles, Career Path and the Corresponding ranges of grades.
6. The other sections of the document are commented in the opinion on GCC/DOC 8/2024.
7. The administration had initially planned to “simplify” Annex I to the Service Regulations by making it void of substance with solely the Job Groups and the Corresponding ranges of grades.
8. At the time, the CSC members in the GCC expressed their worries that changes to the basic structure of the career paths and job titles could be made in the future without any decision of the Administrative Council.
9. In the revised version, the table is “simplified” to a lesser extent and new “clarifications” are introduced as shown in the comparative table:
On the merge of technical and managerial career paths
10. The amended table now merges managerial and technical paths. When looking at the context, it can be seen as a first step towards the direction of simply abolishing the technical career path.
11. As an example, the case of the Senior Expert job title is worrying. Since the first mandate of Mr Campinos in 2018, there has been no opening of new Senior Expert posts. In DG1 Management meetings, upper management even declared that “Senior Experts are history”.
12. We believe that Senior Experts play an essential role in collaboration with colleagues and patent quality. The job title should be maintained and new job offers proposed.
13. In the GCC meeting, Employment Law denied any attempt to delete the technical career path and referred to Article 47 ServRegs which remains unchanged:
Article 47
General principles and structure of the career systemProfessional development shall take place either within or between the following two career paths:
(a) technical or
(b) managerial.
The managerial career path shall comprise all posts with staff responsibility as defined by the President of the Office. The technical career path shall comprise all non-managerial posts (emphasis added).
14. We were not convinced by the argument and worried that amendments to Article 47 ServRegs would be the next step.
On the introduction of Senior Advisor in JG3
15. The Job Title “Senior Advisor” is newly introduced in JG3.
16. There is no clear definition as to whether it comes with staff responsibility or not. Is is technical? Is it managerial?
17. “Senior Advisor” posts were already created and appear to be used in practice to “reallocate” Directors whose managerial performance or loyalty were deemed not satisfactory.
On the Team Managers
18. The Job Title “Team Manager” already present in JG4 is now replacing the title Head of Section in JG5 and is newly introduced in JG6.
19. Colleagues in JG6 already perform management tasks and we would expect they would be classified in JG5. The amended table show it will not be the case.
20. We are concerned that the same job title “Team Manager” is featured such a vast range of JGs (JG4, 5 and 6). This policy does not go into the direction of career progression for lower JGs which are considered to be blocked by a glass ceiling.
21. In the GCC meeting, Employment Law explained that Team Managers are examiners, administrative employees, administrators experts and lawyers performing essentially their core task and partly performing in addition a managerial task. As the emphasis is maintained on the core task, the Office sees no need for a reclassification to a higher JG.
22. This statement confirms that the Office policy is to delegate managerial tasks to lower job groups without the benefits of a career progression.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the CSC members of the GCC can only be negative about the document.
The CSC members of the GCC
Comments of the CSC members of the GCC on GCC/DOC 24/2024
Orientation on recruitment CA/100The CSC members of the GCC regret that the document has been tabled to the GCC for information only, although CA/100/24 will be submitted to the Administrative Council for opinion. The GCC should be asked to provide an opinion because the outlined strategy impacts our colleagues and their employment conditions.
We note that the office confirms that there is a sustained demand for the office’s services – this in combination with our public service mission and legal obligations are indeed aspects to be considered for any recruitment strategy. These elements on their own should already suffice to understand that the current understaffing in some areas, the intention to fill gaps by internal mobility only and thereby leaving new gaps in other areas, has not only reached its limits, but has already passed them.
We doubt that the chosen strategy meets the goal of remaining adaptable, agile and proactive to thereby respond adequately to evolving needs. The described strategy even puts the accomplishment of some of the key drivers of SP2028 in jeopardy – particularly the one of High-Quality Products and Services.
The human approach seems to be widely ignored, decisions are described to be merely data-driven, colleagues are moved around, thereby leaving gaps elsewhere and the administration is pretending that the headcount was sufficient, and understaffing was not an issue. It is questionable, how the main focus on a cost-effective staffing helps to build a resilient workforce. In addition, it is still more than unclear, how the alleged gains of the digital tools can be measured to confirm that the savings on FTEs over the last years have indeed been compensated for.
The document rightly refers to long-term resource needs and how the office intends to satisfy this demand. The planned actions, however, do not address the long-term needs. The focus mainly lies on internal mobility, thereby moving around staff who are often already in their last few years in the office, and on intending to fill the gaps with Young Professionals. Both measures do not provide any long-term perspective, to the contrary: the unit losing colleagues also loose experience and a knowledge transfer to any future recruit might not be possible. There is hardly any return on training investment for the receiving units either, as the retention time of most of the new recruits is limited to a few years only.
The described replacement rates (RRs) for 2024 are not at all reassuring of the office’s intentions to counteract the well-known understaffing in many areas of the office . The only positive aspect seems to be that there were fewer leavers than expected – but even so, the office did not manage to meet their already conservative goals on RR, not even for examiners. The situation was even more alarming in all other areas, where the office claims to follow average RRs of 50%. Reality shows that for years, the RRs have not even come close to this percentage. We recommend that at least the RRs for 2025 should be re-calculated accordingly.
The headcount development shows a reduction of the overall number of staff by roughly 10% over the last six years. Whilst it is true that the reduction is lower within the examiner community (-6%), it is critical in all other areas of the office (-14,5%) and shocking in
Patent Administration (-23%). How the office guarantees that the quality of our products and services does not suffer from this imbalance is to be seen.
86% of the leavers, according to the document, went on retirement, meaning that 14 % of the leavers had other reasons why to discontinue their employment with the Office. It is not clear from the document if the reasons have been analysed and whether these figures are higher for 2024 than in previous years. Such an analysis could help to adapt future recruitment and talent planning to avoid an ever-increasing turnover.
Conclusion
The wave of retirements over the next years will continue to increase the gaps in the workforce. Neither the number of staff leaving nor the loss of experience, which is intensified through job rotation and internal mobility, can be compensated for with the proposed strategy. Furthermore, it can neither be measured nor confirmed that the digitalisation and provision of further tools are an adequate compensation for the decrease in headcount which has already been entered on the credit side.
The office will need to reconsider the recruitment policy taking into account alarming signs of staff fatigue evidenced by rising sick leave figures and confirmed by staff surveys. Shifting gaps within the office, ignoring long-term perspectives in view of the age distribution and leading all to believe that digitalisation is the universal remedy for all staff related issues cannot any longer serve to hide the real problems.
The CSC members of the GCC
That last bit speaks of the "real problems" and why "digitalisation" doesn't solve them. As explained by those same people in the past, a lot of this digitalisation is in clear violation of the EPC too. █