*Update 23.01.2024, the formal HR evaluation [1] was published in November 2023, using one year of data April 22-April 23. We request that this be followed up with the calendar year of 2023.* More than one year into the implementation of the Decision on Working time and Hybrid Working (WTHW) [2] and with the deadline fast approaching, DG HR started the obligatory evaluation process at the end of May to ‘assess whether adjustments … are required’ (see Article 17, WTHW decision [3]). Generation 2004 welcomes this evaluation and the fact that HR has requested feedback from (selected) joint committees, even though it is not formally required. Nevertheless, we do find it unfortunate that an evaluation envisaged from the start should have such limited scope. We have 7 proposals: 2 to make the evaluation more meaningful and inclusive and 5 on the decision itself.
First, we ask that the staff-consultation part not be limited to a small focus group (as indicated on MyIntracomm [4]) but open to all staff everywhere. If not, how to ensure that this random sample of staff [5]is representative of the >32000 staff [6] at the Commission, the numerous places of employment, the many different contract types and diversity and inclusion in our workplace [7]? The stated intention to use the ‘[r]esults of the recent pulse surveys and available data, such as use of teleworking and presence in the office’, while useful, cannot replace full and thorough engagement with staff, giving each of us an opportunity to respond. Empower staff to help you shape the adjustments! Pulse surveys [8] (and here [9]) were not designed for this purpose, staff were consulted in June 2022 and February 2023: 2 and 10 months post implementation of the WTHW decision and the two show increasing satisfaction [2] on every single point measured, from flexible working overall to physical working arrangements in the office to impact on work-life balance and impact on trust within the organisation.
Second, any evaluation worth doing must also duly take into account the input of trade unions and staff associations (OSPs) as part of the consultation itself. We have dealt with the fallout and have seen where colleagues have difficulties, why is our input only to be sought at the end? For a genuine, useful and transparent collaboration on the evaluation, why not consult as far and wide as possible?
‘DG HR shall perform an evaluation of the implementation of this Decision by 30 September 2023. On the basis of that evaluation, the Commission shall assess whether adjustments to this Decisions are required, after concertation with the trade unions.’ (Article 17(2), WTHW decision [3])
Third, we insist that the void created by the WTHW abolition of the local part-time committees be addressed: the new WTHW committee [10]is not able to deal with situations where a request to work part-time has been refused, leaving colleagues with no option but mediation [11] or a Article 90(2) complaint [12] (options which are mutually incompatible since they cannot run concurrently).
Fourth, we reiterate our proposal [13]on teleworking from outside the place of employment (teleworking from anywhere/abroad (TWA [13])) in order to allow to our institution to remain forward-looking and attractive for the best talent on the job market, while taking the best possible care of its staff. Check out out the latest TWA status [14]showing managers acknowledge its positive impact.
Fifth, Generation 2004 asks DG HR to allow any remaining TWA days to be carried over to the following year[1], at least until the number of TWA days is increased to 60 days/year. This would go in the direction of flexibility and trust management that is at the core of the decision and foster a better work-life balance, especially as our population is overwhelmingly made up of multilingual colleagues, expats or those with family and interests or commitments far from the place of employment.
Sixth, when can we reasonably expect to see the as-yet-unpublished ‘… register of types of tasks incompatible with teleworking.’ (Article 8(3), WTHW decision)
Seventh, the lump sum payment for additional teleworking costs [15]: we would like clear information on when/how this can be provided and figures on claims accepted/paid so far (we believe it to be zero). Remember that the colleague who sought reimbursement of costs via the courts [16] lost, not because it was an unjustified request, but because of all the possible teleworking-related costs, internet is not listed.
‘Where appropriate, DG HR may adopt a decision providing for a lump sum covering certain costs of teleworking staff, subject to budgetary availability.’ (WTHW decision [3], Article 13(4))
If you want to share an experience or situation that could be of interest, or have a comment on the implementation of the decision, get in touch with us [17].
Generation 2004, your voice in all staff matters
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004 [18].
As always, feel free to contact [19] us if you have questions: we’re here for you!
[1] This was (partially) done in 2021 [20], the first year these 10 TWA days were made available. On 08.12.2021 an email communication announced that the days could be combined with the end-of-year days (annual leave days no longer necessary) and that these 10 days could be used up until 15.01.2022. This did not happen in 2022 (there was no announcement stating that it would not happen) resulting in any days intended for January 2023 being lost.
toolTips('.classtoolTips14','We understand that 7000 of the c. 10000 respondents to the March 2021 HR diversity and inclusion survey chose to answer the section relating to harassment. The results were expected to be ready 14.10.2021. *Update 01.07.2022: HR D&I survey results (including those from the optional section on harassment) are available under DG HR survey results: Reports/metrics [21]. A summary is in April 2022 Central Staff Committee (CSC) plenary [22]. *
‘The Diversity and Inclusion Office is working on a new Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan, due to be released in Q4 2021. It will be an update since the last report in 2019 to reflect new priorities.’ (My Intracomm, Staff Matters, Diversity and Inclusion [7], Ongoing projects and events)
'); toolTips('.classtoolTips26','A committee whose members are from two or more different organisations. In the context of the staff representation at the Commission this means that the committee members are:- 50% HR (\'the administration\')
- 50% trade unions and staff associations (OSPs).
Joint Committees at the Commission can be attached to the Central Staff Committee (CSC [23]) or to the Local Staff Committee (LSC): Brusels, Luxembourg, Ispra/Seville, Karlsruhe, Petten, Geel, France and Outside the Union (\'hors Union\'/\'CLP-HU\').'); toolTips('.classtoolTips43','Trade unions and staff associations (OSPs) [Organisations syndicales et professionnelles]'); toolTips('.classtoolTips47','Trade union or staff association (OSP) [Organisation syndicale et professionnelle]');