Letter
from U4U
for EUROCONTROL
EUROCONTROL Reform :
the Staff shouldn’t pay for it !
This Monday Feb, 8th,
we heard the DG explaining his plans, with a reserve in case of
unforeseeable events.
The ETS on a voluntary basis
About the ETS, we note :
a) that the stated objective is a reduction of 120 persons, including natural departures, during 2011. Without repeating this exercise, unless new budgetary constraints, at the moment unforeseeable, arise.
b) that the offered conditions will have to keep a balance between the attractiveness for the Staff and for EUROCONTROL's budget.
c) that the DG has not spoken about complementing this voluntary scheme, if it is accepted unanimously by the Member States and gives acceptable results, with a compulsory mechanism.
This is totally new, as the documents presented during the concertation rounds, to be then submitted to the States, foresaw a concomitance of both voluntary and compulsory mechanisms, creating the threat to push aside those who are not volunteers. But, in the puzzling lack of official documents containing quantitative objectives, one can only guess the final scenario.
However, the credibility of the pronouncement of the Management is already weakened because, during the concertation round on the 9th, that is one day after, the document on the table still foresaw the concomitance of the two mechanisms. Pitifully, two trade unions out of four saw no problem in it and did not object, a fact that could hamper the legal position of staff members who may challenge them being laid-off.
If ETS is put in place as a purely volunteer-based program, it is acceptable from our point of view, provided that all forced departures plans are abandoned.
Forced departures
We reject all obligatory mechanisms, which would take no account of particular individual constraints, which would push aside civil servants who could not cope with a brutal and unplanned reduction of their revenue. In the case of art 41, if applied to people with enough seniority and old enough to hold until retirement, the damage may look limited, but particular circumstances may render it harsher than it would seem at first.
But in the case of Annex X, to be applied against persons with low seniority (this statute only is in force since 2002) and often young (to whom the title of "civil servant" gave the illusion of a real permanence of their post), the consequences might be really difficult for them and their families. The Art 41, applied to persons with low seniority or young, is not any more better ... Hence, if the ETS is rejected by the Member States or do not deliver the expected results, the Management’s projects are threatening to cast aside whole families, a good number of them being expatriate ...
Compulsory retirement schemes are not acceptable for serious trade unions and should be rejected by them.
The DG's Plan B
Financially, the ETS project has a lot of loose ends and therefore runs the risk of being rejected by Member States.
If the ETS is rejected, a simple majority in the PC might approve the use of art 41. In this case, we demand the formal guarantee that the eligibility to it is made on a purely voluntary basis. We demand that the application of art 41 be made in full compliance with the totality of the concertation process and not behind the scene, as announced.
We reserve our right to challenge by all means a plan that would lead to forced departures.
We would also reject the increase of the number of persons to be laid-off, under specious reasons and unclear constraints (120 persons, including natural departures, as announced without full clarity on who is the targeted population : middle management and / or the rest of the staff).
Let's recall that addresses to the Staff are but verbal statements, not officially minuted, that might be changed without warning. Nevertheless, on such a fundamental matter than the career evolution of civil servants, it is absolutely needed that the reasons for future decisions are laid down in stable and official documents.
Contract Agents
Even more disquieting was the answer of the DG related to Contract agents (in his first answer, there was probably a confusion with contractants). U4U won't accept that contract agents, being already discriminated by a fixed-term contract and a lower salary, be considered as an adjustment variable, that their contracts be brutally terminated or renewed at a pitifully low rate.
Even if we were rightfully opposed to this type of statute, these contract agents are now part of the Staff and should benefit from our full solidarity.
Putting the pillars in place
We all heard the promise of a fair process for staffing the pillars. So be it. However, we remember that the recent nominations, moves or sidelinings were made without due process, even illegally. The credibility of the Administration's pledge is to be judged on these facts.
The guarantee of the fairness of this process is all the more important because the impact of the decrease in staff will be almost exclusively on CND and DR (the percentage of support functions being reduced from 20% to 15%). It is therefore important for everyone to find a post if one does not want to be called redundant.
U4U invite everyone to take this promise seriously and to contact us to challenge by any possible mean any decision that would breach it.
Skills
The DG invites us to insource back our activities. C'est la vie, formerly, all the rage was on outsourcing despite staff warnings about the risks and wasted resources of a mindless policy. We therefore welcome this change.
But the Management must be aware that any change process has a cost, and here, a training cost with a view to reinforcing or rebuilding the necessary professional skills. Without this investment, this policy, sound in its principle, would be a mockery.
Join us ! Membership 5€ (support 50€)
Get yourselves heard, take part in our working groups, join us !