Brussels, 17/10/2001 (Agence Europe) - The chairman of the high level negotiating body on Commission reform, Niels Ersboell, finalised, on Wednesday, his conclusions on the main results reached during nine meetings that the group held in September and October. On the whole, the work done by this body, as well as consultation, allowed common positions to be reached on the major guidelines relating to all "reform" issues (through clarification of draft texts for amending the statute), except for the dossier on reform of the career structure. Four trade union organisations (Renouveau et Démocratie, FFPE, TAO and SFIE), which represent 40% of all staff, prefer option A+ transformed into A++ (keeping the present structure with a few improvements) because it would above all mean the Council would not have to review the salary scale downwards. The two others (US, confederation) spoke out in favour of the more innovative model (improved option C), as it would meet the requirements of modernisation and simplification of the system (reduction of the number of categories, decompartmentalisation of officials blocked, and rights acquired preserved during the transition period).
Mr Ersboell writes that, if the College were to adopt a proposal for a new career structure (for which the Commission does not hide his preference), all the members of the body consider that improvements may still be made to option C, presented by the DG ADMIN, so that a new option integrates elements ensuring that the system is better balanced. Other than the improvements requested, which already seem to have been taken into account (addition of a 5th grade and definition of modalities for promotion from one grade to another and true "permeability" between the two main groups of functions, i.e. administrators and assistants), "all" the members of the body consider that the following guarantees must be imperatively acquired: (1) individual guarantees in the form of salary maintenance at the moment of transition to the new system, as well as guarantees that salary will progress, for each official, until the highest level of his/her grade in the current structure. (2) overall statutory guarantees in terms of percentages of the minimum rates of promotion. The body stresses that such guarantees must, at a minimum, correspond in their budgetary impact to the current system arising from statutory provisions concerning automatic salary increases; (3) after this, the new system must "guarantee the same overall income to officials providing a good service, throughout their careers".
In this context, the members of the body firmly recommend that the Commission establish with the trade unions "a protocol of agreement on the process for negotiation with the Council" concerning the "reform package", including the proposal for a new career structure. This agreement should specify the general conditions that would trigger off the consultation process, prior to continued negotiation at the level of the Council. The bringing into question of the minimum promotion rates, considered by the body as an indispensable condition for the adoption of a new career structure, as well as other elements cited above, should thus set off the process. The protocol of agreement should above all cover the following areas: - the method for adjusting remuneration; - the overall level of remuneration; - the abolition of the temporary contribution and adjustment of allocations and allowances set out in Annex VII of the Statute; - statutory guarantees concerning individual and collective guarantees; - the use of contractual agents in predefined entities or entities created by a specific legal act (Commission representations and delegations, agencies, implementing offices).
In response to the article that appeared in EUROPE of 15 and 16 October, p.12, Renouveau et Démocratie wrote us a letter, to which the SFIE is associated, in which it considers that, contrary to what Agence EUROPE indicated, "on the controversial chapter of career reform that the Commission wrongly considers as the fundamental point of its reform, no agreement has been found". The signatories affirm that, not only the representatives of four trade unions out of six but also the majority of the other institutions sought to stress the risks presented by career option C+ supposedly linear or continuous (technical imperfections of the proposal, possibility of legal litigation entailed by reclassification of over 25,000 officials, unlikelihood of benefiting from sufficient budgetary guarantees on the part of the Council). All in vain as, while two options were in principle on an equal footing, the DG ADMIN and Mr Kinnock's office, which constantly sought to orient work of the Ersboell group towards the B/C/C+ option, explicitly announced their intention to have option C adopted by the Commission on 30 October. This decision would have serious and adverse consequences as it means: - the risk of inter-institutional conflict with the European Parliament and the Council, with serious repercussions at statutory level; - an open door to gradual but significant loss of remuneration; - the Commission is not able to obtain the inclusion in the Statute of budgetary guarantees that it promised to request of the Council. It is therefore important to obtain clarification of the Commission's attitude: - why therefore is it so keen to place itself in the hands of the Council?
In order to unload responsibility onto the Council for any failure in reform? There are several other possibilities: - Mr Kinnock hopes that the linear career, or that which does instead, will bring the long-awaited media success and is not too concerned about its consequences on the staff. Promises are only valid for those naïve enough to believe in them. - Without wishing to say so openly, some Commissioners share the concern expressed by their Member States of origin budgetary regulation and would agree to giving a hand, nothing being possible without a proposal from the Commission which, in this field as in many others, holds the right of own initiative; - The DG ADMIN would hope to obtain from the Council, in exchange for its good will, greater flexibility in the management of staff and mainly in the staff breakdown table. This objective, which has been pursued for some time, seems to the DG Admin to be worth the risk of a fall in the salaried mass. In any case, the matter will be concluded at the cost of the staff, which will have to pay the price of the compromise through a sustainable fall in income".