The 2010 CDR appeals phase is coming to an end. As last year, over 3500 colleagues filed appeals, mostly those with 4 or 5 points. R&D together with other trade unions fiercely defended each and every appeal in the competent committees and working groups.

R&D demand an end to this disaster: we invite the Commissioner and DG HR to finally accept the exorbitant failure of the CDR in its entirety, and to follow best practices in other institutions.

We cannot accept another round of this nightmare for everybody involved next year!

In year 9 of this Kinnock CDR, and following several ‘slight amendments’ over time to ‘make staff better understand the system’ all there is is demoralisation and outrage among the very large group of well performing colleagues. An atmosphere of distrust and resentment between staff and their managers has emerged.

You should know that last spring DG HR wasted months of precious time doctoring one more time with the existing CDR, in a vane attempt to ‘discourage’ colleagues from filing appeals. Far from that, under the new, even more complicated, procedure colleagues kept their head up and flooded the administration once again with over 3500 appeals, not least with the support of the R&D Help Desk and R&D appeal templates.

Had the administration used this precious time to negotiate a truly simple and transparent promotion system, on the basis of the principles as defended by R&D for many years we might be looking forward to real improvements in 2011. Instead, DG HR is preparing for another round of CDR psychodrama next year!

Please, could we finally agree that there is quite simply no way of explaining to colleagues
how they should be certain of a normal career according to the provisions of our Staff Regulations,
with 4 or 5 points, while the median is 6 ???

An enormous waste of Human Resources should finally ring the alarm bell. Blocking hundreds of expensive and partly high level staff for several months, just to deal with structural deficiencies in the evaluation and promotion system cannot be justified before the European taxpayer. In times where Member States are looking for reasons to justify cuts to staff budgets (and pension rights and salaries) this is outrageous, and very silly.

R&D principles for a simple and transparent evaluation and promotion system:

  • While basing promotions on merit over time, the evaluation procedure has to be separated from that of promotion. Management tools need to be effective and not a function of the promotion exercise.
  • Rapid careers, where merited, should be limited to the ‘historic’ percentages
  • Protection of the vast majority of well performing colleagues.
  • These who merit should move at the speed specified in Annex 1B of the Staff Regulation
  • No incentives for DGs to artificially create slow careers to pay for highflyers.
  • Existing rucksacks should be kept (no loss of seniority as was the case in 2003)
  • Evaluation of work carried out in the interest of the institution
  • Discussion between staff reps and DGs before finalisation of promotion lists
  • Installation of a Promotion Committee with the competence to ‘promote’ and to correct injustices

R&D calls for immediate preparation of a new evaluation and promotion system for 2011!