First a bit of context, Contract Agent (CA) colleagues (3A and 3B together) are now 24.5% of Commission staff, that is, CAs are the second-biggest group of staff (behind the biggest group of all: administrator (AD) officials). For some time now there are more CAs than assistants (ASTs) (counting both AST officials and AST temporary agents) and yet the CA salary, job security and advancement possibilities in general remain limited in comparison to other categories of staff. To complicate matters further, the limited positives available to CA colleagues are allocated within the CA group itself in a rather opaque fashion: CA3B (more than half of all CAs) have fewer career possibilities than their CA3A counterparts.
Generation 2004 has been regularly contacted by CA colleagues, regarding the possibility of a function group upgrade. While a means to do this does indeed exist (‘screening‘, Article 13 of GIPs); it applies to CA3A only (again, excluding CA3B), it is not sufficiently utilised and is not organised on a regular basis.
Contract Agents: the unhappy underclass?
CA colleagues are not evenly distributed across DGs and find themselves disproportionately in three offices[*]: the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB), the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL), and The Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO). Interestingly that might be a contributing factor in the consistently low wellbeing figures, among the lowest in the Commission, for those services (see 2023 staff survey, pp.8-9)[**].
|
|
Contract Agents as % of total staff of that service (Key figures, 2025) |
| OIB | 78.4 |
| OIL | 64.8 |
| PMO |
75.8 |
We take the opportunity to remind you that CA staff earn less than officials while doing the same tasks and roles.
‘GFIV contract staff meeting the same minimum recruitment requirements (education and experience) as junior administrators may earn 28 % less than the latter. Currently around 6 % of staff, all of them GFI and GFII contract staff, earn less than the lowest paid official (AST/SC1, with a basic yearly salary around
€32 400). Another third of staff (across all categories) earn up to twice that amount.’ (European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff, Paragraph 61)[bold is not present in original]
CA3A: overall numbers increasing but career advancement remains haphazard
The following article provides the latest evolution of CA3A staff numbers and distribution in the 3 offices, based on the most recent data available to us (2021 and end of 2024). While the situation may have evolved slightly in 2025, it is reasonable to expect that the CA staffing in the Offices still remains significantly undervalued.
CA3A colleagues are, unfortunately, the only CAs who can qualify for function-group reevaluations (‘upgrades’) via screening. Such upgrades are particularly welcome when staff perform duties above what is required by their current function group[**], but as seen in the Picard case, there can be unintended consequences of such an upgrade. Other relevant elements could also be considered, as presented in the second part of this article.
CA3A at OIB
Source: see the end of the article, including the explanation of mid-point *
In the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) it’s no surprise to see that staff numbers are highest where pay is lowest: FGI (no equivalence) and FGII (equivalent to AST/SC). FG I declined slightly (290 to 272), while FG II stayed stable but very large (594 to 588), together making up more than 85% of CA staff of the OIB in 2024. Higher function groups expanded: FG III (equivalent to AST) rose to 112 and FG IV (equivalent to AD) to 42. The most numerous: FG II, accounted for 58% of OIB CA staff in 2024, and the least numerous FG IV, only for 4% of the CA total. OIB is still very heavily weighted towards lower function groups, with FG IV remaining underrepresented.
CA3A at OIL
Source: see the end of the article including the explanation of mid-point *
In the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL), FG I shrank (42 to 29), while FG II expanded significantly (155 to 189), now making up 66% of CA staff in OIL. Higher categories also increased: FG III reached 51, and FG IV, though more than tripling, remains only 18 staff (6% of CAs in OIL). The most numerous is FG II (66% of CA staff in OIL) and the least numerous is FG IV (6% of CA in OIL), despite strong relative growth. OIL is shifting resources away from FG I towards higher function groups, especially FG II and III, perhaps related to the known higher cost of living there and the corresponding difficulties with attracting and retaining staff.
CA3B at PMO
Source: see the end of the article including the explanation of mid-point *
The Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) experienced by far the sharpest changes. FG I, the lowest group, decreased (31 to 18). FG II remained the backbone (308 to 315, 67% of CA PMO staff). At the same time, higher groups expanded: FG III rose to 124, and FG IV – the group expected to carry the most responsibility- grew dramatically from 3 to 24. Yet even after this growth, FG IV still accounts for only 5% of CA staff. PMO is moving away from low-paid groups, but the most advanced category (FG IV) remains marginal in proportion.
CA3A across OIB, OIL and PMO
Source: see the end of the article *
Across all three Offices, the lowest-paid groups (FG I and II) dominate staff structures, while the most advanced group, FG IV, remains severely underrepresented despite recent growth. OIB is the largest service overall, but with the heaviest reliance on FG I and II. PMO has made the strongest move towards higher categories, decreasing FG I, though FG IV is still just 5% of CA staff. OIL follows a similar pattern to PMO, but on a smaller scale.
From 2021 to 2024, there is a slight shift away from FG I towards higher groups and we hope this trend will continue. FG IV, the category carrying the most responsibility, is still underdeveloped across all services. Strengthening FG IV representation will be crucial to balancing responsibilities with the appropriate staff mix.
Evolving working conditions: scope creep?
Working conditions are changing. While DG HR ensures the coherence of job descriptions and function groups upon recruitment, colleagues are now expected to take on significantly more responsibilities than in the past. Not all of these requirements are reflected in their official job descriptions. We recommend that colleagues in all staff categories proactively request updates to their job descriptions where they are performing tasks beyond what is currently listed. Routinely, many colleagues perform duties that exceed the expectations of their function group. While AST officials can have such contributions formally recognised in their evaluation reports and potentially use them to apply for certification, no equivalent mechanism exists for contract staff who may wish to qualify for a future function group upgrade or to show to a future employer.
CA tasks are ‘performed under the supervision of officials or temporary staff’, right?
By the very definition of contract agents are supposed to work under the supervision of an official or a temporary agent (see Special report no 15/2019: p.50). This requirement is a myth, as in most cases CA have the very same reporting hierarchy as officials. Additionally, the access to managers is limited, with some units and sectors sometimes going beyond the ratio of 100:1 and 60:1 respectively. The wide-span organisational structure, with overpopulated units, as present in Offices, can result in challenges to team cohesion and employee development. In some cases, CAs in lower function groups are expected to supervise and coordinate other staff members or external personnel, and while this should not be their role, Generation 2004 believes it should be one of the criteria qualifying for an upgrade.
Roles supporting high-visibility tasks and people
Not all roles are equivalent. Even within the same function and profile[**]], responsibilities and requirements can differ significantly. Certain positions demand exceptional availability, flexibility, resilience, and high-level performance, far exceeding the demands placed on other employees with the same job profile. Colleagues working in highly demanding environments, supporting significant figures and Cabinets, should not be assigned to the lowest function group (Group I), which, according to the Court of Auditors report, are classified below the AST/SC level (Special report no 15/2019: p.50).
Career-progression, even where it is a possibility, presents challenges
Even where career-progression is possible (CA3A), elevated responsibilities often coincide with career bottlenecks. The pace of reclassification is extremely limited: Function Group I colleagues may have only two promotions in a lifetime, and Function Group II colleagues just three. Some colleagues may already find themselves at the end of their careers while still having a significant number of years of service remaining. Upgrading the function group for qualifying colleagues should be a natural step, particularly since the existing framework allows for such upgrades under Article 13 of the GIPs. We need more openness from administration in that respect.
What is normal for promotion/reclassification?
| Staff | Appraisal | Reward possible? | Minimum time in grade (‘seniority’) to be eligible | Average speed of reward |
| Contract Agents 3a | Yes | reclassification | 2 years | Page 3 of Ares(2021)2467829 – 12/04/2021 CSC note on CA 3a |
| Contract Agents 3b | Yes | no | ≤ 3 years | N/A |
Different function groups, same responsibilities
While a contract agent and an official may perform the same responsibilities[**], they can (and are) recognised and remunerated differently. Inequities also exist within the contract staff population itself. Generation 2004 understands that, in some cases, certain responsibilities are carried out across different function groups. However, it is concerning when contract agent colleagues perform similar tasks but are classified in different function groups. This issue affects all function groups, not just the lower categories of contract staff. Colleagues in such situations also deserve to have their function group upgraded to reflect the responsibilities they actually perform.
Need for a regular, inclusive, transparent and fully-fledged screening exercise
A comprehensive and regular screening exercise is essential to ensure that colleagues in this growing group category who are performing above their current function group are recognised and fairly upgraded taking into account a series of other elements as outlined above.
This issue has been brought to the attention of the administration (please see our exchange with administration under References below). It remains a matter requiring further discussion to ensure that deserving colleagues are appropriately recognised and supported.
Known issues and known solutions
We take this opportunity to remind you of the Court of Auditors’ conclusion that the Commission is less attractive as an employer overall and our own frustrations at the lack of opportunities for those who do manage to enter the institutions.
‘We looked at the impact of the 2014 reforms at the Commission and concluded that they have led to considerable long-term savings. Yet though the Commission’s workforce has become more diverse and flexible, the actual impact of changes to improve HR management has been rather limited. We also found that the 2014 package has negatively impacted the Commission’s attractiveness as an employer. To address future challenges, monitoring of the Commission’s workforce should better target emerging risks.’ European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff
For any other questions, do not hesitate to get in touch or leave a comment below.
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004
_______________________________________________
References:
Exchange with administration on screening:
Generation 2004 note of 2 October 2025
DG HR reply of 19 May 2025
Generation 2004 note of 10 April 2025
Function group definitions – art 80 of CEOS
Source of data for charts/graphs: *
Compilation based on Ares(2023)7910416 of 21.11.2023 (state of paly end 2021 – table: Répartition des AC3a par groupe de fonctions et par DG) and Ares(2025)1052266 of 11.02.2025 (state of play end 2024 – table 5).
For certain entries 2024 statistics do not provide specific figures but the value of 5 or less. To obtain an estimated figure, a mid-point value was used in all such cases.
[*] ‘Offices’ is normally used (as we do here) to mean 3 specific services: OIB, OIL and the PMO but not EPSO, the OP or OLAF. Unfortunately, the term is used differently elsewhere, so please always check! The draft Commission budget 2026 (pp. 958-963) uses ‘Offices’ to cover all 6: OIB, OIL, PMO, EPSO, the OP and OLAF as do the General Implementation Provisions (GIP) C(2011)1264.
[**] For comparison, here are the figures for the other 3 offices and we note that they rate higher in terms of wellbeing (see 2023 staff survey, pp.8-9).
| Contract Agents as % of total staff of that service (Key figures, 2025) | |
| EPSO | 16.7 |
| OP | 4.6 |
| OLAF | 5.9 |
[***] Function-group equivalence and indicative tasks and can be found below:
- European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff. Indicative tasks p.50
- European Court of Auditors, 2020,Special Report 23/2020: The European Personnel Selection Office: Time to adapt the selection process to changing recruitment needs. Indicative tasks p.45
