Following the all-staff event of 13 July in which the workstreams presented an overview of their recommendations, we have had a closer look at the report with suggested recommendations concerning contract staff.  

This article sets out our reflections on the report from the perspective of Contract Agents (CAs). It highlights areas where the proposals could strengthen the role and career prospects of CAs, as well as aspects that require further clarification, stronger safeguards, or additional guarantees to ensure that the reform delivers fair and sustainable outcomes for all. 

These reflections are intended to contribute to an open and constructive discussion. Are you a CA? We encourage you to share your views on the report, raise additional concerns, or suggest further improvements. Together, we can help ensure that the voices and legitimate expectations of CAs are considered.  

EQUAL TREATMENT MUST REFLECT THE DIFFERENT REALITIES OF NON-PERMANENT STAFF 

The report rightly calls for ‘equal treatment of temporary staff by honouring everyone’s contributions and fostering a sense of belonging.’ This is an objective we fully support. However, the report is not sufficiently clear about who is included in this commitment. References to ‘non-permanent staff’ frequently appear to concern temporary agents (TAs), while contract agents (CAs) are often mentioned only indirectly, and if they are, they concern mainly CA3Bs.  

If equal treatment and talent retention is to become a guiding principle, it must explicitly recognise and value the contribution made by CAs across the institution: both by colleagues on the limited 6-year contract (CA3B), but also those on CA3A contracts, many of whom have served the Commission for almost their entire career, and many for years being blocked in advancement which is extremely limited.  

THE NEW ENTRY MODEL MUST RECOGNISE EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE 

The most significant change proposed at this stage concerning entering the Commission is to ‘replace all existing external and internal routes towards a permanent career with a single rolling application process…’ 

We very much welcome any proposal that creates new opportunities for CAs to access TA positions (see our postulate n° 3). However, the proposed model raises a concern: how will the experience already acquired inside the institution be recognised? 

The report suggests that a CA could “sit the rolling test and re-enter through it as a temporary agent”, with Commission experience being valued in the same way as equivalent experience gained outside the institution. 

This formulation creates uncertainty. A CA who has already dedicated six years (CA3B), or potentially many more (as CA3As) to serve the Commission, appears to receive no meaningful recognition when being re-engaged beyond that what would be possible for an external candidate.  

THE ROLE OF ‘RECLASSIFICATION’ IN CA CAREER PATHWAYS MUST BE CLEARLY DEFINED 

The report refers to strengthening pathways towards permanent employment along with ‘reclassification options.’  

The notion of ‘reclassification’ used in the report deserves further clarification. For CAs reclassification, which is reserved to CA3As, normally means promotion and generally refers to progression to a higher grade within the same function group rather than broader career advancement.  

Another part of the report suggests a career progression via upward reclassification for CA3Bs. Is it about opening the reclassification exercise to CA3Bs? The current reclassification process (reserved currently to CA3As) remains particularly slow. Currently, for some grades, the average time required to be reclassified exceeds the maximum duration of a CA3B contract. Furthermore, although the Commission and the Executive agencies recognising the same implementing provisions in that respect, Executive Agencies have, already since 2024, generally reclassified CA3As one year faster than the Commission. Why cannot the Commission at least live up to similar or exceed these expectations? 

It is therefore not  clear what is meant by ‘reclassification’ in those two instances: a promotion, the pace of which would be sped up, a more ambitious application of Article 13 of the GIPs 2017 allowing progression between function groups, continuous grades reviews once somebody reaches the required years of experience, a wider opening of these opportunities to all CAs, independently of their contract type, through a future revision of implementing provisions, a ‘reclassification’ to another staff category, or ideally the combination of them all? Indeed, to effectively improve the career prospect of contract staff a combination of measures would be required.  

STRUCTURAL MOBILITY FOR CONTRACT AGENTS MUST BE STRENGTHENED 

The proposal to ‘create an integrated talent and mobility framework for delegations, representations and agencies’ is a welcome step towards improving career development for staff. However, it is unclear why Offices who also engage a significant number of CA3As are not included in this suggestion? If Offices are expected to be covered under the ‘broader HR strategy’ (as mentioned in part of the report linked to Offices and agencies), CA3A mobility should be specifically considered and mentioned. This omission is particularly problematic because the lack of effective mobility mechanisms in Offices has long been a source of frustration, especially for CAs who remain in the same service often for the most part of, if not the entire, career.  

Similarly, the idea to ‘expand the opportunities for mobility by systematically publishing all CA and TA vacancies on EPSO’ is an important objective, but it would not, on its own, resolve existing shortcomings. Some job publication platforms already exist, such as the CA3A job market (which can also host CA3B vacancies), which contains very few vacancies and does not provide a comprehensive overview of available posts. Genuine CA mobility would require more than centralised publication platforms… 

NEW (and CURRENT) OFFICES MUST PROVIDE REAL CAREER PROSPECTS FOR CONTRACT AGENTS 

The report proposes developing a specific HR strategy for Offices yet says relatively little about mobility or broader career progression specifically of CA3A colleagues, despite CA representing the vast majority of staff in many Offices. 

This issue becomes even more significant if additional Directorates-General or other bodies are transformed into Offices in the future. Existing Offices ‘are run’ by CAs as they can employ up to 75% of that staff category. Indeed, many colleagues appreciate the stability offered by CA3A contracts of indefinite duration. Nevertheless, this stability now comes at the cost of limited mobility, undervalued contracts, restricted career progression and increased frustration. 

Creating new Offices from Directorates-General in which up to 75% of the workforce would consist of CA3A staff (the same objective  is mentioned in the report) without first providing sustainable long-term career prospects, would simply replicate the structural shortcomings affecting CA3As today, on a much larger scale. 

We call on the administration to examine the working conditions in Offices, to correctly strike the balance between efficiencies, staff motivation, and frustration currently experienced by the contract staff there.  

Apart from finally effectively starting using to a meaningful extend the internal mechanism for the function group upgrades via article 13 (with some dedicated budget and quotas), why could also imagine a clear career path from a CA3A (indefinite) towards TA positions also of indefinite duration. Indeed, such a measure was suggested in the section of the report relevant to executive agencies (i.e. exploring internal selections for CA3a to access the TA2f career).  

The lack of career prospects of CA3As is not limited to Offices and executive agencies. CA3As colleagues engaged in Representations and Delegations are also confronted with career blockades. Consequently, reinforced career prospects of confirmed CAs of indefinite duration to become a TA of indefinite duration would be very much appreciated and expected by all CAs, especially by colleagues who already reached the end grade of their function group and can no longer be reclassified or/and would like to exercise more meaningful managerial positions.  

RECRUITMENT TRANSPARENCY IS WELCOME, BUT CAREER DEVELOPMENT IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL 

The report assessed the “CAST testing as inconsistent with the transparency and openness expected of the Commission” that aims to attract the best talent on a merit-based basis.  

Indeed, simplifying access to CAST (also for internal staff who would like to upgrade their function groups), together with providing clearer guidance, would contribute to a fairer and more transparent recruitment system for CAs.  

However, easing the access to (re-) recruitment should not become an end in itself. There is a need for stronger career prospects and genuine opportunities to move between contract types. Indeed, the report’s suggestion that the ‘best CAs’ could apply for dedicated ad hoc TA selections is therefore encouraging but requires further clarification. It should also explain how such dedicated procedures would interact with the proposed rolling recruitment model and whether they would genuinely recognise the experience of existing staff (see earlier points discussed in this article).  

SAFEGUARDS AND STAFF RE-ENGAGEMENT GUARANTEES ARE CRUTIAL 

The report also proposes organisational reforms, including the possible transformation of Executive Agencies into Offices and the creation of other Office-like organisational structures.  

Changes of this magnitude inevitably create uncertainty. For CAs, whose contractual status already makes them more exposed to organisational change than permanent officials, this uncertainty is even greater. 

Particularly alarming is the report’s reference to a possible transformation of Executive Agencies into Offices, which specifically mentions no guarantees cornering the full redeployment of staff. Such uncertainty is unacceptable for colleagues whose careers and livelihoods could be directly affected. 

Any reform must therefore be accompanied by robust safeguards protecting staff throughout the process. These guarantees should cover all organisational changes: including mergers, restructuring, transfers between services, and changes to working methods resulting from digitalisation or the deployment of artificial intelligence. 

No CA (or any staff member in fact) should be left without meaningful re-employment opportunities or disadvantaged as a consequence of the current review.  

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS REQUIRE CLEAR RULES AND STRONGER REASSURANCE  

The report rightly acknowledges that “a transition period would be essential to honour the reasonable expectations of those already in service” and that “non-permanent staff currently employed would be given a fair, time-limited opportunity to compete for establishment, under transitional arrangements distinct from future internal competitions.“ 

However, these commitments remain too vague. The report does not explain what the transitional arrangements would entail, how they would operate, or who would benefit from them. 

In particular, it must be clarified whether these measures will apply equally to all categories of non-permanent staff, including both CA3A and CA3B contract agents. It is equally important to specify whether dedicated selection procedures (‘to compete for establishment’) will be organised as part of these transitional arrangements. 

CONCLUSION 

Overall, the report provides valuable ideas for modernising the Commission’s workforce model. However, from the perspective of CAs, important questions still remain unresolved, and several sections of the report appear tricky to reconcile with one another.  

On one hand, the report acknowledges the valuable contribution of non-permanent staff. On the other, the proposed entry model requires experienced CA to compete again alongside external candidates, without clearly explaining how their years of institutional service would be recognised.  

The distinction between TAs, CA3A and CA3B colleagues should be reflected much more explicitly, including the explanation of the transition measures for already engaged colleagues. The specific situation of CA3A staff calls for significantly more attention and concrete suggestions, particularly in light of the proposed expansion of the Office model, which engages an extremely high number of CAs.  

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD 

We strongly encourage CAs colleagues, who have not done it yet, to read the Large-Scale Review Report carefully and form their own assessment of its proposals (or confirm ours were you believe it is valid and relevant to you) and share it directly with the workstreams via a feedback channel found here. Please note that this possibility will remain available only until the end of September.  

As always, we would love to hear from you. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with us. 

If you appreciate our work, consider becoming a member of Generation 2004.