EPO Workers Point Out that the EPO is Destroying the Planet Under the Guise of "Hey Hi" (It Also Grants Many Invalid Patents Illegally
Related:
- The EPO, Europe's Largest Patent Office, Admits Outsourcing to Microsoft Slop
- EPO Presentation Bemoans Misuse of Slop in Decision-Making on Patents and in Classification (Which is Likely Illegal Too)
- EPO Likely Breaking the Law Yet Again, This Time by Using Slop for Patents (to Lower Costs While Producing Monopolies That Cause Ruinous Lawsuits)
On 12 March and 16 June 2025, staff representation met with the administration in the Local Occupational Health, Safety and Ergonomics Committee (LOHSEC) in Munich. The Office still remains secret about the future of PH1-4, the canteens and the condition of relocation of the BoA in PH7. Workplace allocation in PH5-6, 7 and 8 is a concern especially after the administration arbitrarily decided to abolish allocated workplaces during the two year renovation of the Isar building. The staff representatives also addressed the tremendous energy demands of AI and the impact on the EPO's carbon footprint.
Due to the holidays there has not been much EPO coverage lately, but the mischievous behaviour of António Campinos and his ilk persists (Campinos was parachuted in by nepotism in 2018, having been hand-picked by his predecessors - without successors in sight - to cover up/obstruct for what they did; he stayed in power by bribing all the voters, a.k.a. "vote-buying"). The illegalities are being "normalised" through inaction and apathy. European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable - are being granted and workers are illegally set aside in pursuit of unlawful algorithms that do not properly do "the job".
A new report is being circulated today by the Local Staff Committee Munich City, Haar and Brussels (LSCMN). We reproduce it here for public scrutiny's sake, as HTML, GemText and plain text:
Örtlicher Personalausschuss München Innenstadt, Haar und Brüssel
Local Staff Committee Munich City, Haar and Brussels
Le Comité local du Personnel de Munich Ville, Haar et BruxellesMunich, 03-09-2025
sc25009mpReport on the 56th and 57th Meetings of the Local Occupational
Health, Safety and Ergonomics Committee (LOHSEC)
on 12 March and 16 June 2025On 12 March and 16 June 2025 the meetings took place with Staff Representatives of the LSC Munich (LSCMN), members of the Administration, health, safety and facility services, as well as a representative for the Boards of Appeal. This report is the consolidated version of both meetings.
Present were Elodie Bergot (Chair; PD Welfare and Renumeration, EB), Roberta Romano-Götsch (CSO; Chief Sustainability Officer, RRG), Martina Moritz (Medical Advisor, MM, March only), Jürgen Janda (FM; Member of the Infrastructure Services, JJ, March only), Christian Neumann (FM; Member of the Infrastructure Services, CN, June only), Stephanie Prest-Hutchinson (Member of HR, SPH), Johannes de Bruin (OS; Occupational Safety expert, JdB), Alexander Kirch (OS; Occupational Safety, AK), Katja Warneck (Representative for BoA, KW, June only), Susett Rolle (SR; Member of LSC MN, SRo, March only), Andrei Melnichi (SR; Member of LSC MN, AM, June only), Matthias Goebel (SR; Member of LSC MN, MG), Alyssa Drouault (Member of HR, AD), Edoardo D’Attila (Member of HR-YP, ED).
The meetings lasted from 14.00h to 14.42h (March), respectively 14.00h to 14.34h (June).
1. Reports from the COHSEC
1.1. February
The Chair gave a short oral report on the COHSEC meeting of 20 February 2025 and presented the four agenda points discussed during that meeting:
▪ Sick leave statistics
In 2024, short-term sick leave decreased by 1.1% compared to the previous year while overall sick leave increased by 5.9% averaging 12.74 days per staff member. Similar increases have been observed outside the EPO too: large public health insurers and research institutes in both Germany and the Netherlands reported higher levels of sick leave during the summer months of 2024. The Office noted an enquiry from staff representatives about the possibility of receiving statistics on the prevalence of upper limb disorders at the EPO, stating that this information will be included in the H&S report at the next COHSEC.
▪ Health and Safety Workplan 2025
The Office invests considerable resources in supporting the health and well-being of its staff. The Health and Safety Workplan 2025 outlines key activities for the year ahead, including health campaigns, medical examinations and support for psychosocial well-being. The plan is structured around the four health and safety objectives for 2025, in line with ISO 45001 certification of our health and safety management system. These objectives focus on promoting well-being in a hybrid environment; enhancing emergency responses; increasing managers’ awareness of Occupational Health and Safety support; and maintaining the overall quality of the work environment. The workplan was presented to the COHSEC along
with the new health and safety calendar for 2025. Staff representatives welcomed the plan and suggested making use of Campus Days as an opportunity to introduce some of the proposed health initiatives to staff. The Office took note of the suggestion, which is already being implemented in the Campus Days programme.
▪ OHS management system: ISO audit
The EPO’s occupational health and safety management system continues to meet ISO 45001 requirements, as confirmed by the external certifying authority last September. The main points addressed by the external auditors, which are being followed up by the relevant services, were presented to the COHSEC, along with the outlook for the upcoming internal and external ISO audits.
▪ Points raised by the staff representatives in the COHSEC
Several points for discussion were raised by the staff representatives in the COHSEC, including their request to introduce an ageing policy at the EPO. The Office acknowledged the request and informed COHSEC members that the matter is being monitored. Additionally, the Office took note of a further request from staff representatives to provide further support to mothers who are breastfeeding.
1.2. June
The Chair gave a short oral report on the COHSEC meeting of 4 June 2025 and presented the three agenda points discussed during that meeting:
▪ Sick leave statistics The Office presented data on sick leave covering the period from April 2024 to March 2025. While short term sick leave remained stable compared to the previous 12-months, overall sick leave increased by 6.7% averaging 12.87 days per staff member. The increase is primarily caused by long-term illness and aligns with national trends across host countries. The staff representatives in the COHSEC noted positively that the Office’s sick leave figures compare favourably with the national average in host countries, despite an ageing workforce. At the same time, they expressed concern about the figures in DG1. The Office took note of these comments and will continue monitoring the situation.
▪ Health, Safety and Well-being report 2024
▪ The 2024 Health, Safety and Well-being report was presented for information, show-casing the Office’s sustained efforts and concrete progress in promoting staff health in a hybrid work environment. The report indicates strong staff engagement with preventive services, with over 3 400 vaccinations, 566 vision tests, and 406 skin screenings carried out in 2024. Occupational Health consultations rose by 23%. In addition, a surveillance audit of ISO 45001 - an international standard for occupational health and safety management - confirmed that the Office’s system is well-established and functioning effectively, with no issues or areas of non-compliance identified.
▪ The Office also reported positive outcomes in ergonomic interventions, workplace assessments, and the provision of psychosocial support to staff. Overall, the report suggests high operational effectiveness in the delivery of Occupational Health and Safety services and continued staff trust.
▪ Staff representatives welcomed the positive trends, including a reduction in diagnoses related to upper limp disorders. They also encouraged continued promotion of micro breaks, broader access to physiotherapy, particularly at smaller sites, and the introduction of tools to support eye relaxation as part of a holistic approach to well-being. The Office took note of the remarks and confirmed that it will continue to work with the relevant services to identify areas for further improvement, with the aim of enhancing support for staff health and well-being across all sites.
▪ Points raised by the staff representatives in the COHSEC
▪ Members of the Central Staff Committee (CSC) submitted a document outlining three additional discussion points.
▪ They referred to observations made during the recent ISO audit regarding the current level of involvement of staff representatives in occupational accident investigations, joint workplace visits with ergonomic experts, and access to software ergonomics evaluations, and requesting more substantial involvement. The Office took note of the request and underlined that occupational accidents are handled locally at each site and that confidentiality must be ensured.
▪ Staff representatives also raised the topic of the recently decommissioned Healthy Browsing Chrome extension. The Office confirmed that a new tool, the BREAK TIMER extension, is now available and supports efficient break management in line with current standards. It also informed the staff representatives that BIT has updated the FAQ on remote teleworking and linked it to the corresponding knowledge base article.
▪ Lastly, staff representatives encouraged a more harmonised approach to preventive medical checks across all sites, noting that current arrangements may not offer the same level of access for colleagues at smaller locations. The Office stated that it is currently reviewing the topic with the aim of identifying possible improvements within the current hybrid working environment.
The next COHSEC meeting is scheduled to take place on 1 October, the further date for 2025 is 20 November.
2. Points raised by the Staff Representation members of the LOHSEC
2.1 Building matters
2.1.1 PH1-4 / Canteen PH1-4 / Removal Boards of Appeal and excess offices
While the Staff Representation at the June meeting gratefully acknowledged the personal tour of a model section of the new PH6 by high-level Facility Management (FM) representatives and the transparent atmosphere, it nonetheless reiterated their questions regarding the fate of PH1-4, housing presently 1 200 workplaces, and the fate of the canteen / cafeteria therein, noting that as of Q1/2027, if everything went according to plan, there would be no canteen left. While the canteen in PH7 could partially compensate for this loss (actually PH8 would be needed as well), the state of affairs regarding removal of BoA to that building remaining shrouded in secrecy.
The future use of the excess offices not required by the BoA (more than 200) was still uncertain and needed to be addressed in view of the fact that the workload of the BoA appears to decline yet further. Staff did not deserve being kept in limbo for years. Measures of this magnitude needed to follow a plan in order to avoid demotivating staff yet further.
Regarding PH1-4, it had been officially said by the administration that there were talks with the city of Munich and some of its high-level representatives. SR inquired whether it would be possible to fill staff in on these plans and what a possible contingency plan would look like.
The administration replied by reiterating its confirmation that there would always be catering in the PH, more than just a food truck according to the Chair, and the information would be shared in due time with the staff.
Concerning 2027, there was no time pressure to detail it yet, but a solution would be found in order to ensure a commercially reasonable use of the canteen. Several options were on the table but no final decision had yet been taken at this stage.
With respect to the use of excess offices in PH7, there was a plan and things were rolling, according to FM. However, it was too early to divulge details.
N.B.: In the meantime, it has been announced that the move of the BoA to PH7 will take place at the end of 2026. While the last part of our above questions has not been dealt with, no voluntary comment having been received, we hear in the meantime that possibly the city of Munich might become a tenant for some of its administrative bodies, pending an agreement on rent and in turn taxes payable by the Office. Under these constraints we really wonder whether the EPO will save money commensurate with having staff move around constantly, even actively keeping them out of the building (see closed off floors 6-8 of PH1-4), and for the rest of the time having them wonder where their workplace will be in the near future. We even wonder about any profits at all, since ownership would be maintained, as well as all responsibilities coming with it. We are sure that the administration will keep us notified.
2.1.2 As to allocated workplaces in new PH5-6
In June, regarding the move to PH5-6, noting that less people than anticipated appeared to retire until 2027, and the number of workplaces shrinking by 500, the SR inquired whether there would be enough office room in terms of allocated workplaces (i.e. one for each staff member coming at least 3x / week), noting the generous space in the model office presently on display in BT 6. Reiterating from our previous questions in these matters (see e.g. Report 55th LOHSEC and item 2.2 therein), SR still failed to see how the present demand based on 1.200 available workplaces would be met by 700 workplaces. SR would be grateful for some hard data from the administration side in this respect, going beyond mere general assurances.
The administration specified that considering the current occupancy level in Munich, there would be enough workplaces available.
Regarding retirement until 2027, this assumption should be taken carefully, as the trend was still uncertain. Moreover, the retirement age policy remained unchanged, which meant that this effect could be of a mere temporary nature.N.B.: We questioned whether the allocation policy put forward by VP4 Nellie Simon, i.e. three office days per week normally guarantee an allocated workplace, can be maintained when nearly half the workplaces disappear. As an example, we assumed around 600 allocated workplaces in present- day PH 1-4 (i.e. half of the available WPs), these would certainly not all remain allocated upon removal, in view of only 710 WP total in BT 5+6. While neither questioning the assumed numbers and conclusions, nor the present allocation policy, the Chair remarked that the allocation rules “might be adapted”.
At present we wonder whether the recent abolition of allocated workplaces in the ISAR building is the blueprint for such an “adaptation” (see FM announcement, our reply), noting that likewise about half of the WPs are gone.We are especially worried since upon meeting with the administration, notably FM and Social Dialogue (see our urgent prior request), they could not promise us that allocated offices in the ISAR building would be back after the building measures were completed.
2.1.3 As to the renovation of the PH underground garage
In March the SR inquired whether the works in the PH underground garage were proceeding according to plan, with all risks under control. It took notice of the email announcing inter alia extensive sampling of concrete, sent 22.01.2025.
The administration replied by confirming that the situation was unchanged and progressing in line with the planned time and budget. The physical work would start in January 2026, currently the project was in its preparatory phase (e.g. investigations, tests). The administration would inform
staff through an upcoming intranet communication about the sections of the garage affected by the construction works to ensure as little disruption as possible and to have enough parking places for everyone during the project.
N.B.: in the meantime, as of 01.07.2025 until 31.12.2026, the underground garage beneath PH5-6, including the Grasserstraße entrance has been closed off from the parts beneath PH1-4.
2.2 Health and Safety Matters
2.2.1 As to suspected problems with mould, mildew and legionella in PH7
In March the SR inquired whether their information was correct, that PH7 had a massive problem with moisture, mould, mildew and legionella because it was closed for so long, quite dark and with very low heating (12 °C). This condition was said to postpone the move of the Boards of Appeal into the building. The SR noted that it had warned the administration in the LOHSEC repeatedly about closing off buildings for prolonged periods of time for precisely such reasons. It further inquired about the state of closed-off floors 6-8 in PH1-4 and PH5-6. It had further asked for the possibility to inspect the mentioned building (parts).
The administration, in particular FM explained that even if buildings were empty, they were not abandoned. By consequence, rumours on the possible presence of moisture, mould, mildew and legionella in PH7 were wrong. Directorate 442 of FM had inspected the building in week 10 and confirmed its good condition. The building was kept at a stable temperature of 12°C to avoid the problems mentioned. No inspection of PH7 with the Staff Representation is foreseen at the moment, since it is regularly done by the FM directorate responsible for it.
N.B. In the meantime, SR was asked to view a model office of PH6 (see item 2.1.1) and the condition of PH7 reported to us was not confirmed by inspection staff of BoA either. Finally, a date for the move into PH7 has been communicated on the intranet (see N.B. with item 2.1.1). Possibly someday building inspections will be done again, for the sake of transparency and notably to ward off rumours.
2.2.2 As to an alarm in the toilets for handicapped staff
In June the SR inquired whether the toilets for the handicapped could be retrofitted with an alarm, in case a handicapped user should require assistance. It explained that such alarms were standard in the host country Germany, the Health and Safety regulations of which the EPO needed to respect, pursuant to the PPI. Thus, would it be possible to install such a system (typically a cord dangling beside the toilet seat), leading to alerting of security staff? It should be fairly straight forward, since security staff were said to have a first aid training and since the signalling could be via wireless LAN or the like. This could advantageously be included into the renovation works in BT 5+6, followed by BT 7. BT 8 would need to be retrofitted.
The administration informed that the installation of alarms in the toilet for handicapped staff would be done in June or July.
N.B.: The work on some of the toilets began on the day after the LOHSEC meeting, which is very much appreciated by the SR.
2.2.3 As to the fire detection system
In March, the SR noted the recent report on the intranet, according to which another building evacuation had been caused by steam from an electric kettle in a kitchenette triggering the fire detection system. After a previous evacuation in 2023, likewise caused by steam in a kitchenette, it had been suggested to check whether the fire detectors in the kitchenettes were of an appropriate type to avoid unnecessary alarms (i.e. heat detectors, vs. ionisation or optical fire detectors).
The administration confirmed that this evacuation was not a false alarm and that the fire detection system acted correctly. The activation of the fire detection system was triggered by the wrong behaviour of a staff member, who left an open kettle with boiling water. Due to both steam and the high temperature, the alarm was correctly activated.
The administration asked the staff representation for support in spreading the message to not leave kettles alone when water is boiling, to avoid similar issues in the future.
2.2.4 As to the phone network for emergency use
In March, the SR noted that the stand-alone telephone network for emergency use could only be sensibly used if the precise locations of the handsets were known. However, this was not the case: neither in paper notices on the walls, nor in the intranet. SR proposed to add indicators, e.g. stickers, to the escape route indicators already present throughout the buildings.
The administration, in particular OS, replied that the phones were registered in the emergency route plans, and that new physical, visible and self-reflecting posting signs have been ordered and would be put in place. Ultimately phones and first aid means would be grouped together.
N.B.: We note that to date neither are the telephones registered in the escape and rescue planes, nor are any of the said posting signs to be found. The first aid cases and phones remain far apart.
2.2.5 As to crows in the Isar building
In June, the SR recited reports of crows dropping small rocks in mid-flight, collected from the Isar building roof. This was an imminent safety risk for pedestrians below. The SR suggested placing nets over the loose gravel / rocks on the Isar building roof as a possible quick fix to this problem. The nets should not impede PV power output. Alternatively, and/or additionally a specialist for such bird problems might be consulted, for non-violent solutions.
The administration noted that due to Europe-wide animal protection regulations, the Office had a limited room for manoeuvre concerning crows. FM and OS explained that, as a work-around, the gravel on the roof was fixed with epoxy glue in repetitive application to prevent loosening of pebbles and gravel. Once the PV panels were installed, gravel on the roof would be obviated. Nevertheless, it was not possible to limit the behaviour of birds flying around and taking stones from somewhere else (e.g. the Isar river).
2.2.6 As to the possibility of on-screen alert during building evacuation
In June, the SR inquired whether it would be generally possible to have an alert on-screen on every computer attached to the LAN of the respective building, noting the rehearsal fire alert and building evacuation on June 4 (PH1-4). Thus, while the speakers were quite loud in the hallways,
the doors to the offices were rather good at muting sounds and headsets could do the rest. While there were trained assistants checking for remaining office residents, speed would appear vital. SR was confident BIT could come up with a practical and inexpensive solution for implantation. The administration took note of this question and would check the feasibility of an alert on- screen with BIT. New action point (AP 06/2025-1).
2.3 Ergonomics Matters
2.3.1 As to the garage exits in PH1-4 (Zollstr.) / PH5-6 (Grasserstr.)
In June the SR inquired as to the reason for the constantly changing design of the garage exits in PH1-4 (Zollstr.) / PH5-6 (Grasserstr.). For many years the exit barriers were continuously open or even missing, then recently complete blocking of exit pathways was introduced, for cars, motorcycles and bicycles alike, requiring the generally cumbersome opening of the barriers with the badge. The bizarre situation was thus present that it was more difficult to exit the garage vs entering it (the entry barriers were considerably shorter, allowing for motorcycles and bicycles to pass). More recently, the exit barriers were shortened again, now likewise letting bicycles and motorcycles pass and most recently, the exit barriers in PH 1-4 are constantly lifted. Needless to say, the Staff Representation agreed to the latest measure.
The administration remarked that the point raised did not refer to a safety issue, but rather to a security issue. It further answered that the barrier systems for all buildings have recently been renewed as part of a broader standardisation project, which has now been completed. The reason for the bizarre situation was an off-spec delivery by the manufacturer which has now been corrected.
With respect to bicycles, the administration remarked on a side note that at present, bicycles were still tolerated inside the PH garage; however, only until the new bike shed at PH5-6 was finalised and operational.N.B.: In the meantime, the barriers at the exit Zollstr. are down again, hence badges are needed again, “for security reasons”. The barriers had been raised only due to a broken cable. As said, the exit Grasserstr. is closed for renovations.
2.4 Sustainability Matters
The SR believes that the explicit topics covered by the scope of the LOHSEC (occupational health, safety, ergonomics) are inextricably and inherently linked to issues of sustainability as well, be it occupational health or ergonomics (e.g. sustainability of digital tools or of buildings and the offices within them), general health (e.g. energy use, hence carbon footprint of digital tools and climate issues). After all, we have the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) present at every LOHSEC meeting. We do not believe in an artificial separation of sustainability issues related to buildings (e.g. their energy use or carbon footprint) and digitalization, in particular related to artificial intelligence.
2.4.1 Usage of AI and carbon footprint
In March the SR inquired how the extensive computer systems and networks of BIT, in particular cloud, ViCo and AI tools based on large language models (LLM), in particular AI classification and in-house Chat-GPT were accounted for in terms of cost and CO2 equivalents.
Where would they be found on the EPO’s carbon footprint chart? (cf “Progress towards carbon neutrality”).
The SR drew particular attention to the attached article “Generative AI exacerbates the climate crisis” to the known energy intensive cloud computing, as well as to the well-known rule of thumb that virtual meetings within about 2 km distance use more energy (thus emit more CO2) than in- person meetings.
Would a more sensible meeting policy not include more in-person meetings within the same or in close-by buildings from the carbon footprint angle? Not to mention known psycho-social benefits of personal contact.
Would less AI possibly be more sustainable from the same carbon footprint angle? Again with psycho-social benefits including a stronger staff engagement based on a greater sense of individual achievement. The latter benefits would seem yet stronger if AI tools were truly human- centric advisers rather than autonomous competitors.
The SR presented additional information to supplement its agenda item with pertinent information which was published just before the LOHSEC meeting, in the form of the following document from the journal Nature (vol. 639, pages 22-24 (2025)), both as link and as pdf attachment. The document is straight forward and points out the tremendous energy demand of AI, in particular generative AI such as Chat-GPT, which in total uses up over 4% of the electricity produced in the US (as determined by the International Energy Agency), as well as a quarter of the total output in the state of Virginia (US), predicted to double soon.
The administration answered by explaining that AI and sustainability was not within the scope of the LOHSEC, since it was not a direct occupational, health and safety issue and not a local concern regarding only Munich either. The administration suggested the Staff Representation sent a request though Social Dialogue to have a reply within another context.
The meeting policy came alongside the NWoW policy, which was neither in the scope of the LOHSEC. However, each team and each manager had been encouraged to agree with their team on days to meet in person, to support collaboration between team members.
2.4.2 Power output photovoltaic panels vs. AI needs
In June the SR requested a further inquiry to the power consumption of AI to the percentage of such power use supplied by the advertised PV panels on the roofs to the Munich EPO buildings. Thus the SR inquired as to what the current installed and planned power output of these was. Furthermore, the SR inquired as to what percentage of current (Munich) power consumption for generative AI was covered by the PV panels, respectively was intended to be covered.
The administration replied that this topic was not within the scope of the LOHSEC, as it was neither a health and safety question nor a local issue. Any interest in this sustainability-related topic by the Staff Representative should be addressed during a CSC meeting. The CSO remarked that the numbers for power output were known, but would not be communicated here in the LOHSEC. FM added that a communication on PV panels would be placed on the intranet “shortly”.
N.B.: We find the refusal to answer any question as to power consumption of AI, be it of broad scope as in item 2.4.1 above, or of a quite narrow one, as in this item, somewhat indicative of very large values to be left undisclosed, these possibly at odds with the normal meaning of the term sustainability.
Incidentally, the significance of the above document from the journal Nature is validated by the use of the US energy output figure therein by our CTO/COO, Angel Aledo Lopes, see Inside DG1:
Technology Communities including AI presentation and Q&A “TechCommQA.pdf”, page 11/12, bridging item therein.
It is moreover well known that present-day data farms can run into the gigawatts (GW) of installed power, 1 GW being enough to continuously power 750 000 US homes. Within this energy-intense context, carbon footprint goals are admittedly clearly missed (see e.g. document linked below, page 38). Then there is also the return-on-investment aspect, in that roughly 3x the investments in terms of profit are expected, as lower limit. At the EPO that would be taken to mean savings in staff, buildings, etc.
A good document to put all these numbers into perspective is the Annual Report 2025 of the State of the Digital Infrastructure Industry by the non-profit expert group imasons.org.Hence transparency in this respect would be very helpful, if not justified by all the other sustainability measures going on at the EPO of which we as staff are meticulously informed. To put things into their correct context. We reiterate that we do see AI as a valuable tool, however as adviser in a true “human-centric” sense and not as resource drain or competitor (see our position on AI and quality and call for revising the AI policy).
Your representatives of the Local Staff Committee Munich (LSCMN)
As usual, I take issue with their repeated use of the term "AI". They mean slop.
What the EPO does with slop is illegal. They didn't even ask for permission.
This is the price of dying democracy and lack of oversight in Europe. See all the links at the beginning. █