The most controversial issue in the whole reform is the career system. Apart from anything else, it has major implications for other issues such as the assessment system, promotion and underperformance, middle management, recruitment, and remuneration and pensions.

The aims pursued by reform of the career system are superficially laudable:
- reducing career bottlenecks (particularly at the end of certain careers such as A4 and LA4, B1, C1 and D1);
- forging close links between career advancement and staff appraisal.

The proposals set out by the Commission in its decision of 28 February 2001 are as follows:

Option A: Reform of the existing system (in favour of a more linear career): improving the current system to facilitate moving from one category to another;making upgrading from the third step dependent on reasonable work performance.

Option B: a new career structure to replace an entirely linear structure: a pay scale extending over 20 grades (currently 21); reducing the number of steps per grade to 3 (currently 8 in 15 grades, 6 in 3 grades, and 4 in 3 grades); re-classifying all staff; a lower grade on entry than at present and, on this basis, an increase in the number of promotions (to reach the same levels as now where the official progresses as far as possible);  various points of entry into the grid based on starting competences (no transparency on recruitment); removing the current link between grade and function.

The Commission’s proposal is still too vague on key matters (e.g. the definition of categories and families of jobs, points of entry, and ways of moving from one grade to another).

The High-Level Body has:
- rejected both options proposed by the Commission on 28 February 2001;
- decided to make every effort to improve the present situation (without altering the pay grid) so as to achieve the aims sought by the Commission;
- decided to examine any new linear career proposal put forward by the Administration.

R&D has already made it clear that the only reason for examining this second work hypothesis (a new linear career proposal) is so that staff may draw real benefits. R&D is still sceptical about this second approach because:

- it provides for a review of the whole of the current European public service career scheme, and will involve the re-classification of over 25,000 employees currently in post, and using a mechanism that is inevitably very complex, has to yet to be drawn up, and is likely to trigger a large number of grievances (letter of 28 March 2001 from the Secretary-General of the European Parliament to the European Parliament Bureau);

- the linear career scheme, which is supposed to reduce the current number of bottlenecks between the various categories, does not include the necessary guarantees in terms of professional skills and knowledge for moving to certain higher grades to be the same as the current passage to a higher category, and to open up no possibility of slippages;

- any linear career scheme introduced into the Staff Regulations involves a review of the pay grid; this will foster the realisation of the Council’s desire to achieve its all too frequently advertised objective, either immediately or in due course, of reducing global payroll costs (reports from the COREPER and the Council’s Group for Staff Regulations are quite clear on this matter);

- the amount of changes to be made to the Staff Regulations, should the linear career scheme be introduced (i.e. 80% of the Regulations), complements the budgetary danger with a legal one: that is to say that there would be a danger of the Council taking the opportunity to distort the Regulations;

- all the other Institutions, Administrations and staff representatives (with the exception of the Court of Auditors for the Administrations, and the Economic and Social Council (ESC) in respect of staff representatives) reject the options put forward by the Commission, and have called on the Commission to improve the current situation (i.e. Option A with no automatic block on steps);

- notwithstanding the Administration’s aims, there is insufficient time to draw up a new linear career plan, study the implications for other staff policies, and to draw up ‘new’ Regulations; the Commission has undertaken to propose measures by the end of 2001.

In its proposals of 28 February 2001, the Commission undertook to provide the following guarantees:

‘no staff member’s current pay must be threatened by the adoption of a new pay scale’;

‘after the transition, the career advancement of people who perform averagely well in their careers should not be affected’;

‘reform of the career structure should not lead to a deterioration in the total pay received in the course of their careers by members of staff currently in post who perform averagely well in their careers.

However, the Commission has not yet been able to show exactly how it would introduce these guarantees, which have already been turned down by the Council, into the Staff Regulations.

R&D has called on the Commission to promise to withdraw any proposal that does not include the budgetary guarantees referred to above.

R&D believes that without a significant increase in budgetary resources, there is no option that can offer career paths that are more favourable to staff.

Although the work of the High-Level Body has reached an initial conclusion demonstrating that it is impossible to implement the document on the career structure, the danger that the Commission might opt in favour a system that is disadvantageous to staff has not diminished in any way.

The linear career plan is a key element in the reform that is likely to be imposed on Commission staff and the other Institutions for purely political reasons.

R&D argues that the budgetary and legal dangers are so great that it is not possible at the present time to embrace the linear career plan. R&D believes it is possible to achieve the objectives sought by balanced adaptations of the present career system. 

Only this approach will protect our pay and the coherence of the Staff Regulations.

The Executive Committee

Pour adhérer à R&D/To join R&D :
NOM/NAME :

Address adm.

envoyez ce talon à/send this stub to: Marina OGLE L 102 7/12
Pour avoir plus d’informations sur R&D/To receive more information on R&D :
Le secrétariat politique : Olga PROFILI/Cristiano SEBASTIANI (55676/55656/99329)
Luxembourg, à Paul Van BUITENEN, EUFO 4255, ?33036 Michel THIERRY, JMO B3/26A, ?35843
CDR, à Sybren SINGELSMA (ARD 613, tél. 282.21.87)
CES, à Charles POTIER, 2 rue Ravenstein, 1000 Bruxelles (546.93.31)