Have you ever been on sick leave?
Most of you probably have at some point been ill during your time in the Commission. For some of you, the unpleasant experience of being ill, has been made worse by the related administrative process.
Everything relating to sick leave stems from art. 59 of the Staff Regulations, and its interpretation or creative development in the form of GIPs (General implementing provisions) by the administration.

The current version of the GIPs dates from 2004 and after over 20 years the time has come to update this document. For this reason, DG HR, Generation 2004 representatives and other trade unions have been meeting since last November to discuss the proposed changes.  

Let’s start with art. 59 of the Staff Regulations, which specifies the conditions under which staff can be absent from work due to illness or accident. This includes the necessity of providing a medical certificate in a timely manner to justify the absence. The article also covers the verification process for sick leave, detailing how the administration may request an examination by a medical officer to confirm the validity of the claimed sick leave.  

Furthermore, art. 59 includes stipulations for the duration of sick leave, procedures for notifying absences, and potential sanctions for non-compliance or abuse of the sick leave system. According to the administration, it is thanks to these very strict rules that absenteeism is very low at 4% and falling. 

Now let’s look at some important aspects of the proposed changes: 

• 12 days of sickness without certificate 

Art 59.2 of the Staff Regulations allows for 12 days of sickness without certificate, stating: “If, over a period of 12 months, an official is absent without a medical certificate for up to three days because of sickness for a total of more than 12 days, he shall produce a medical certificate for any further absence because of sickness”, however the administration has been interpreting these “3 days” in a particular way, including absences (e.g. all types of leaves), to the 3-day absence, in this way being sick after or before a leave will require indeed a certificate. Doesn’t it look like a presumption of guilt? It is probably a result of limited trust in the staff of the Commission. Of course, Generation 2004 does not agree with such interpretation.  

• 5 days deadline for sending a certificate 

Another obligation that SR imposes on sick staff is sending sickness certificates at the latest on the 5th day of sickness, unless force majeure can be invoked. Otherwise, your absence will be considered unauthorised. But do not panic immediately if it happens to you once in your career; the administration may be more lenient with first time “offenders” and stricter with the “recidivists”. 

• Obligation to undergo a medical examination 

This is another important point. The SR says “The official may at any time be required to undergo a medical examination arranged by the institution. If the examination cannot take place for reasons attributable to the official, his absence shall be considered as unauthorised as from the date that the examination is due to take place”. This requirement may be problematic in its implementation as colleagues are visited or called at strange hours without any notice and may not be able to pick up the phone or open the door. If the control doctor finds that there is a problem with your certificate or that you are fit for work, it can override your doctor’s opinion, order you come back to work and consider your absence unauthorized. 

• Arbitration procedure 

If you don’t agree you may ask to be referred to an “independent” doctor, who could be “independent” in French language, because is not administratively related to the Commission, but certainly not in the English meaning of “independent” as this doctor will be paid by the Commission. Would a judge be independent if he/she was paid by the Commission? According to the administration, a doctor can be independent even if paid by the Commission. Contesting “independent” doctor’s decision may turn out to be costly. The new rules propose that when “independent” doctor sides with the Commission medical opinion for a second time or more within a period of three years, the staff member shall bear 50% of the costs of the arbitration. 

• Sick leave outside the place of employment 

An important element is art. 60 of the Staff Regulations : “If an official wishes to spend sick leave elsewhere than at the place where he is employed, he shall obtain prior permission from the appointing authority”. This is what our staff regulations state. The administration tabled some additional restrictions. (1) a request has to be done 10 days before departure (with some exceptions proposed). All this in order to “assess[…] whether their state of health permits travel outside their place of employment”. Sounds patronising? For us very much. A request by Generation 2004 to give permission automatically in some situations was not accepted. A positive change proposed by the administration with this new revision is that if you fall ill outside the place of employment (on holidays, or when teleworking from abroad), you will not be obliged to ask for any permission to stay where you are. That was already a practice that now will be confirmed. 

• 24 hours per year for attending medical appointments  

A novelty in the discussed draft is a 24h allowance per year to allow staff to attend medical appointments during working hours. However, it will replace an existing (did you know it existed?),  3-day special leave for medical examination outside the place of employment. If such a tradeoff is good, it will probably depend on your personal situation. 

• Medical part-time 

It describes a situation when you work part time but receive 100% of your salary, in order to facilitate your return to work after a long absence or as a preventive measure. The former decision allowed medical part-time for up to 3 months plus 3 more in exceptional situations, and the new proposal allows up to 6 months over a period of 4 years (rolling). Generation 2004 insisted on providing the scheme for different pathologies in parallel, but the administration has not been eager to agree. 

• Mandatory medical examination for staff members assigned to a post at risk and who have been on sick leave for at least 20 days. 

The new obligatory requirement will concern posts such as drivers, bodyguards, or laboratory workers, although a complete list of such posts has not been presented. 

Sadly, the administration is not open to allow 100% of teleworking to colleagues who because of their medical condition cannot regularly come to the Commission premises nor giving colleagues the right to be accompanied at the medical checks (this decision will be left to the control doctors arguing with the protection of the colleague, while this indeed protects the doctor). 

The negotiations are still ongoing, and a final draft has not been submitted yet. The administration promised comprehensive and easy to understand accompanying FAQs. They will include additional explanations, for example the possibility of sick-leave certificates issued over teleconsultations.  

Generation 2004 staff representatives are giving their utmost to make sure that no new rules are introduced which would further restrict what is already very strict.