Central Staff Committee of the EPO Opposes Abuses Against EPO Staff, Challenging SuccessFactors Stunts
Earlier this year: "SuccessFactors" (SAP) Stunts at the EPO Used to Break Laws and Constitutions, Staff Tricked Into Harming Themselves
LAST night we wrote about the EPO (European Patent Office), calling it "a truly horrifying situation" because it has immunity and thus Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, who are closely connected, leveraged that to commit many crimes with impunity (they also control elections and bribe all the voters to ensure nobody prosecutes predecessors). Shouldn't Europe's second-largest institution be subjected to more oversight and a real form of accountability?
This really must never happen; it caused much bigger problem than just European software patents; the whole European establishment and legality of EU 'courts' is now in tatters. Corruption became the norm and corporations run everything, even the public sector. Many of these corporations aren't even European, so it's kind of ironic that Europe became institutionally colonised.
Earlier this week the Central Staff Committee of the EPO wrote to staff about "Amendments to Circular 366, "Guidelines to Performance Development"".
Their message said:
Dear Colleagues,The President has tabled in the General Consultation Committee (GCC) meeting of 2 June a document on "Adjustments to Circular 366: Guidelines on Performance Development".
The staff representation was invited to a Technical Meeting of 1 hour on 8 May 2025 to discuss these amendments.In the Technical Meeting, we stressed that the conciliation procedure is poorly defined and often misunderstood by staff. Staff who disagree with the reporting officer put their comments in SuccessFactors. Some believe that this would trigger automatically a conciliation meeting. However, staff is expected in practice to send an email to their Team Manager and Director to request explicitly a conciliation meeting.
Having gone through this text myself, in order to see how it can be presented in HTML (and GemText) form, I'd say what people should be looking for in the text or the topic to pay attention to is in (13) below. To quote: "The amendment introduces the skills framework introduced as of January 2025. At the same time, it stresses the importance of performance. In DG1, the only objective criteria are production, productivity and timeliness. These solely relate to speed and omit other contributions from the employee. In other DGs, the performance criteria are often undefined, not objective and even arbitrary."
They don't check if patents are compliant or of good (sufficient) quality. Prior leaks showed that they only strive to grant as many monopolies as possible, even illegal ones. It's like a branch of a bank printing fake money. Imagine how that would go down...
"Read more in these written comments we sent the administration," they added in the communication above. Here's the full text:
Comments on Adjustments to Circular 36
Guidelines on Performance DevelopmentIntroduction
1. In preparation of the GCC meeting of 2 June 2025, the administration invited the staff representation to a technical meeting on 8 May 2025 from 9.30h to 10.30h to discuss “adjustments” to Circular 366, “Guidelines on Performance Development”.
On the process (section III)
2. Amendment as proposed by the administration
“An appraisal report is generally drawn up for the period from 1 January until 31 December of a given year. Each employee will have one report per year that will cover their performance over the whole year, even in the event of a change of tasks or a change of line manager in the course of the year.
Outside the probationary period, each employee's performance is the subject of an appraisal report, which is prepared at least once a year. By way of exception, if the employee has been absent for the whole year and in the case of periods of less than four months (e.g. between a probationary report and the preceding or following normal appraisal report), it is not necessary to prepare an appraisal report. However, it is recalled that feedback on performance during this period, if any, still has to be provided.If parts of the reporting year have already been the subject of a probationary report, no additional appraisal report should be written for the same parts of the year.”
“Outside the probationary period”
3. In the technical meeting, the administration explained that “outside the probationary report” means that any part of the reporting year which is already covered by a probationary report should not be covered in an additional appraisal report.
4. Example: An employee works January-March in a first post, as of April works on probation in a second post for 6 months, as of October is confirmed.
5. We understand that there shall then be a probation report for the period April-September, and an appraisal report covering the periods January-March and October-December. However, the proposed wording suggests that two periods of 3 months are two periods of less than 4 months and there is no appraisal report.
“if the employee has been absent for the whole year and in the case of periods of less than four months, it is not necessary to prepare an appraisal report”
6. The wording “it is not necessary” does not explicitly exclude the establishment of an appraisal report. An appraisal report, even if not necessary, may still be established.
7. However, Article 47a ServRegs on “Appraisal reports” states that an employee shall be the subject of an appraisal report made at least once a year but adds that “[t]his does not apply if the employee is absent for the whole year”. The overarching Article 47a is therefore more restrictive and explicitly excludes the establishment of an appraisal report. For consistency reasons, the wording “it is not necessary” should be amended.
8. In the technical meeting, the administration explained that their intention in the wording “it is not necessary” is that no appraisal report shall be established. We consider that the employee should be the one deciding whether there should be an appraisal report or not.
9. We note that employees on unpaid leave, maternity leave or sick leave might have less than four months of presence at work. In that case, no appraisal report would be established. We asked whether the lack of appraisal work would have an impact on eligibility to the rewards exercise.
10. In the technical meeting, the administration explained that the lack of appraisal report does not exclude from eligibility to the rewards exercise. They pointed out that “feedback on performance during this period, if any, still has to be provided.”
11. We consider that if such “feedback on performance” is the only basis for assessing whether an employee shall be granted a reward, then the Circular should clearly state in which written form this feedback is given and recorded. In addition, it should be clarified how the employee can disagree with such “feedback on performance” and how it would be taken into account for the purpose of the rewards exercise.
“employee’s performance and skills”
12. Amendment as proposed by the administration
“The report will contain comments relating to the employee's performance and skills
ability, contribution and effectiveness, as well as their attitude to work and dealings with others.”13. The amendment introduces the skills framework introduced as of January 2025. At the same time, it stresses the importance of performance. In DG1, the only objective criteria are production, productivity and timeliness. These solely relate to speed and omit other contributions from the employee. In other DGs, the performance criteria are often undefined, not objective and even arbitrary.
14. Outstanding issue
“These aspects are looked at in relation to the level expected in view of the employee's job profile, grade and seniority.”
15. We note that the “expected levels” of performance are not transmitted transparently to employees by the line managers.
On the roles and responsibilities (section IV)
16. Outstanding issue
“[Employees] are expected to contribute proactively to the goal setting, to review their progress regularly and to actively report to their manager on their progress as well as on potential difficulties.”
“In addition to their own reporting officer role, countersigning officers are responsible, on the basis of the EPO goal framework, for defining the goals supporting the delivery of the EPO's strategy and enabling them to be cascaded down through the units.”
17. In practice, objectives are often purely top/down and arbitrarily set without feedback from the employee being taken into account. Information on capacity, resources available and the nature of the work done should be meaningfully taken into account at the time of objective setting. Furthermore, no consultation is carried out at GCC level on the objectives.
18. We consider that there should be GCC consultation on DG objectives and how they are cascaded.
19. Amendment as proposed by the administration
“Employees are responsible for meeting the expectations discussed with their line manager and set as final for the year as well as for actively driving their individual development.”
“[The role of reporting officers] includes setting and adjusting goals as well as maintaining a continuous dialogue with their reportees.”
20. These amendments should not allow the reporting officer to arbitrarily change and even increase the goals in the middle of the year. Goals should only be adjusted in agreement with the employee.
On the performance development cycle (section VII)
21. The timeline has now become only indicative for at least two review meetings with at least one every half-year.
22. We understand that an indicative timeline was necessary for line managers who could not cope with the strict timeline. This is not surprising seeing the increase in size of teams: team managers are now often in charge of 20+ team members (i.e. the size of some former directorates) with time resources now a fraction of the one directors used to have at their disposal. The strict timeline became particularly an issue because of the increased amount of reward exercises for bonuses.
23. Concerning the paragraph stating that “[t]he goals are set by the manager following a collaborative discussion with the employee and are recorded in the performance development tool”, as above (par. 16-18), the staff representation would welcome amendments to the text which would codify the need for meaningful consultation with the GCC (consultation on objectives per DG and how they are cascaded) and with the staff member on individual objective setting to take into account the capacity, resources available and the nature of the work.
On the conciliation procedure (section VII)
24. Outstanding issue
“In cases of disagreement, in particular in cases of a significant divergence of views with the reporting officer, the employee may ask for conciliation by contacting the countersigning officer and reporting officer within two weeks of receipt of the report.
If the conciliation process leads to an amendment of the report, HR should be informed accordingly within two weeks of the conciliation meeting.
Any employee who is still dissatisfied with their report following conciliation may challenge it by raising an objection in accordance with Article 110a ServRegs within two weeks of receipt of the conciliation report.”
25. The timeline is very tight for employees who only have two weeks to react. A reasonable deadline should be imposed on the line manager for providing the conciliation report.
26. The conciliation procedure is poorly defined and often misunderstood by employees. Employees who disagree with the reporting officer put their comments in SuccessFactors. Some believe that this would trigger automatically a conciliation meeting. However, employees are expected in practice to send an email to their Team Manager and Director to request explicitly a conciliation meeting.
27. The role of conciliator has been abolished at the EPO while this task is important to solve disagreements and ensure harmonisation. Employees should be made aware of the possibility to be accompanied in such meetings by e.g. a colleague of their choice or a staff representative.
28. As published by the LSCTH1, we have observed this year an increased amount of vexatious statements in appraisal reports and comments perceived as downgrading the assessment of staff.
_____
1 “Appraisal process”, LSCTH letter to Mr Rowan (VP1) and Mr Lopez (COO) of 07-03-2025 (sc25003hl)
This is not understood by employees who have worked well and faithfully since several years at the Office.
29. The Appraisals Committee should be a paritary body. Currently, it consists only of senior managers. Their “review” is completely intransparent and often perceived as being prone to arbitrariness and discrimination.
30. In relation to the amendments proposed by the administration on the process (section III), colleagues who will have worked less than 4 months in a year might not receive an appraisal report. However, they would receive only “feedback”. What means of redress will colleagues in this situation have in case they disagree with the “feedback”?
The CSC nominees in the Technical Meeting
Technical or not, the above helps reveal that severe issues persist, even if what's left of "the media" won't cover these. That's aside from European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable. Technical people suffer from these. Many of them suffer quietly because of extortion elements.
A decade ago there was a lot of coverage about EPO scandals. The EPO has since then threatened and bribed many publishers. "IP Kat", which used to routinely cover EPO scandals, barely mentions the EPO anymore (only BoA decisions, sometimes, 'on behalf' of AstraZeneca). It covered about a hundred scandals a decade ago (before the founder left) and from almost 1,000 blog posts per year it fell to 181 this year, 439 last year, and in 2022 it was less than one per day (360 for the whole year).
A lack of media - as in scrutinising, critical media as opposed to "press release mills" - means a lack of democracy and nobody checking if the Rule of Law gets obeyed. That's what criminals want.
Who knew Germany would become a "crime capital" for (für) Europe? White-collar crime has no stereotypes based on one's clothes or skin colour. █