R&D is delighted that the three internal competitions, for which a large number of colleagues have been waiting for a very long time, will at long last be taking place. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in the number of successful candidates.

R&D is particularly pleased to note that the expectations and specific features of ‘research staff’ have been duly taken into account by the addition of two specific fields.

A single type of internal competition for all staff in the Institution, irrespective of the budget it is paid out of – now, that is a major achievement about which we can be very pleased, and to which we can give a resounding YES!

But R&D must also report that, despite our best efforts, there are still a number of points of persistent disagreement in the COPAR.

In this respect, R&D’s concern and position HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, and WILL CONTINUE TO BE, crystal clear.

R&D has consistently expressed the view that, in line with the European Parliament’s implementing procedures, it is perfectly possible to organise serious internal competition procedures that are less ‘academic’ and reflect colleagues’ legitimate expectations, and do not turn the Staff Regulations upside down.

Unless, of course, the real reason for the root-and-branch alterations to the Staff Regulations is to reduce total payroll costs, totally subject officials to the arbitrary whims of the hierarchy, and satisfy the Council’s ‘appetites’ by serving the Staff Regulations up to them on as platter – in which case, of course, it will simply be an excuse for…

As far as this issue is concerned, R&D has always held the view that the conditions for taking part in these competitions should not discriminate against colleagues who cannot identify with either of the proposed fields of activity.

R&D continues to argue that, to enable everybody to take part in the competitions, the ‘list of fields’ should be enlarged to include a separate ‘General Administration’ field.

R&D wishes to reiterate that the criteria and the tests should not open the way for arbitrary preferences and, while continuing to be serious and rigorous, should not be out of proportion to the objective.

After all, what we are talking about are internal competitions aimed, by definition, at colleagues who already have considerable experience of work – and not of external competitions.

That, as far as the tests are concerned, is why R&D has expressed doubts about the proposal (i.e. three written tests (two pre-selection tests and one based on their personal file) and one oral test).

R&D is also resolutely opposed to the proposal that staff reports – the credibility and consistency of which in the various services are all too well known – should play any part in these internal competitions.

To this proposal, then, we say NO.

It is quite unacceptable that, on the pretext of simplifying procedures and meeting colleagues’ legitimate expectations, an attempt should be made to subject opportunities for moving up a category to the arbitrary whims of the hierarchy.

It follows that R&D can only express surprise at the ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘zeal’ of the ‘apostles’ of Reform who, more royalist than the king himself, propose to anticipate the most dubious elements before they even come into force, and before the appropriate procedures and measures to do with organisation and information have been put in place.

R&D will continue to keep staff fully informed of all developments in these areas.

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 : O. PROFILI/C. SEBASTIANI/S.VINZEK-BERLINGIERI (55656/99239/64162)
CDR, à Sybren SINGELSMA (ARD 613, tél. 282.21.87)
CES, à Charles POTIER, 2 rue Ravenstein, 1000 Bruxelles (546.93.31)