R&D has been against the current CDR system since the beginning. But while it lasts, we think it’s our duty to do our best to help and defend colleagues. Over six months, a team of experts from R&D and the other trade unions have defended more than 3,500 appeals (2,000 AD and 1,500 AST).

(see more on /2010/10/enough-is-enough-with-this-cdr/).

A. Now, that the Joint Appraisal and Evaluation Committees (JAPCs) have adopted their results, we know that:

  • Roughly 23% of appeals in the AD category and 47% in the AST category will result in additional points.
  • Nearly 200 colleagues were put into a higher performance level, with points increased accordingly but… many were unexpectedly turned down by their Directors General, despite a positive proposal by all appeal instances (see point C ).

Most of the appeals came from colleagues in performance level II and/or whose points were reduced following a promotion. The quality of appeals was particularly good this year, thanks largely to R&D‘s appeal templates and individual counselling.

B. We are still fighting for

1. colleagues whose appeals for a change of performance level have been sustained by all appeal instances but have been surprisingly rejected by their General Directors [36% for the AD! ]

2. colleagues whose appeals have not obtained positive results despite important and recognised extra work in the interest of the Institution

3. colleagues from certain grades whose promotion rates [AST4.D (10%), AST6.C (20%), AST10.B  (20%) and AD 13 (20%)] are separately fixed by Staff Regulations  but not respected in  promotion proposals by the Administration for years now.(see more on /2010/10/cdr-the-missing-promotions).

4. colleagues whose appeal has been treated with important delays by their own services  as well as

5. colleagues appealing for the ‘sac a dos’ conversion of their points and after being transferred from another institution

C. So how did the DGs follow up on the opinions of the JAPC?

First of all it’s worth pointing out that the JAPCs issue opinions but do not make the final decisions. Your Director General has the last word on appeals on performance level and the Director General of DG HR has the last word regarding the attibution of additinonal points.

Roughly 150 ADs and 130 ASTs received positive opinions to change performance level, mostly from II to IB. The DGs followed these opinions only in roughly two thirds of the cases. Sadly, for about 90 colleagues, the DGs refused; reaching an unprecedented rate of unjustified rejections [32%]. In such cases, the Staff Regulation demands a “substantive reason”. It is revealing that some DGs did not provide any. R&D will help all concerned colleagues to challenge their DG’s decision (by formulating appeals on the base of Art. 90.2). What’s even worse, two DGs (ESTAT and RELEX) actually deteriorated the wording of the contested report in some cases. This means that five colleagues, who had excellent reports, are now worse off after the appeal than they were before. This counters a number of important legal principles and is entirely unacceptable. R&D has insisted that these cases be reviewed again.

D. What’s next?

  • End of October, colleagues who have filed an appeal will receive a SysPer2 message about its outcome.
  • By the end of November, the promotion lists will be published on Intracomm.
  • Finally, a monitoring committee will analyse the entire CDR exercise.

R&D will confirm its strong position for a definitive abandonment of this system – that has proved to be highly unsatisfactory for both staff and middle management members.