The lessons of 2010 have not been learnt, but the train is again under way.

R&D has already, and many times before, invited the Commission to undertake a radical review of its evaluation and promotion procedures, which, over the past two years, have caused some 8,000 appeals, with an enormous waste of effort both by the Administration and by staff representatives. The scale of disputes and the effort deployed to manage it are absolutely unreasonable.

R&D can only condemn these delays and is still waiting for the implementation of the recent declarations by Mrs Souka at “Commission en Direct” by which the DG HR appeared to be open to improvements.
R&D can , on the other hand, only thank the hundreds of colleagues who have given up their time to ensure the transparency of this evaluation and promotion exercise by sitting on the various working groups and committees.

Hereafter  are a few remarks which might help to start negotiations on an evaluation system and a promotion procedure which should be simple, transparent and allow appeals in the various phases.

1. Respect for the “Kallas Guarantees” and the situation of young members of staff stranded by the Reform

2011 is a key year for confirming the statutory arrangements concerning promotion rates.

In effect, this year the Kallas Guarantees negotiated by staff representatives and concerning the respect of average time in grade noted in Annex IB of Staff Conditions, need to be verified, and, if the need arises, corrective measures need to be undertaken in order to protect the rights and expectations of staff members.

In this context, R&D will continue to pay particular attention to defend staff recruited since 2004. Now that everyone finally recognises the prejudice they have suffered because of conditions imposed by the Reform, it is urgent to put in place concrete measures at the level of the promotion exercise as well.

2. Tasks in the Commission’s interest

It behoves us that the work of officials, whether on the side of the administration or of staff, be judged at its true value.

3. Making Use of Draft Opinions from Working Groups.

The results from working groups, particularly if they are unanimous, should be taken into account centrally.

4. Carrying forward/Diminution of promotion points

a)   Carrying forward on performance level should ensure the same number of promotion points.

b) Any diminution of promotion points from one exercise to another should be accompanied by a clear justification from the evaluator.

5. Change of performance level

Having noted that appeal evaluators have once again adopted very varied approaches in the matter of following the advice of CPEP AD on the subject, it is proposed that, in the absence of solid justification on their part,  the situations in question be subject to particular attention for Article 90 complaints.

6. Unreasonable attitude of certain DGs

Despite an opinion confirming the report, some DGs have modified the latter unilaterally, and granted extra promotion points. This practice, which is open to criticism, is all the more incomprehensible since the DGs already have derogation powers. In addition, in spite of the unanimous view of the competent joint committee, there were changes in the performance level for the College – upwards of course!

7. Promotion rates for grade AD13

While, thanks to the efforts of staff representatives, the promotion rate for the other grades concerned by Annex XIII has been finally respected, the 2010 promotion rate for grade AD13 did not attain even half that planned either in Annex XIII or in Annex IB of the Staff Conditions (20%). It would be best to have the 2011 promotion threshold set so the percentage of promoted staff conforms with arrangements set out in Staff Conditions, in such a way as to recover the large backlog built up over the last 2 years. R&D is proposing to affected staff that they enter a claim under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

8. Dialogue between Staff Representatives and Directors before distribution of performance levels and promotion points

A dialogue, even an informal one, with Directors General, in advance of distribution of performance levels and promotion points, would enable us to avoid some types of “car-crash”, to reduce the volume of disputes and to discuss particular situations which may arise.

R&D, while criticising this evaluation and promotion system, will not fail to:

• inform you regularly on the steps to be taken at every step of the next exercise;
• to provide all its support to staff who request it and to get fully involved at the heart of the JAPC’s and other joint committees;
• to fight for a new evaluation system and a new promotion procedure, which are fast and transparent, properly designed  to reward the work of staff.