*Update 17.04.2024 the note we drafted on behalf of the Central Staff Committee (CSC) requesting a full evaluation of the revamped evaluation template [1] has been sent.*
Original article: The promotion/reclassification process is not particularly user-friendly. It’s not always clear how DGs choose who to reward [2], nor why some years appear to be better than others [3]. There are situations suggesting that some staff are less favoured [4], while some staff are evaluated as ‘not applicable’ [5], regardless of how well they work.
Please find here the recording of the conference [6], and its slides [7].
What happens between now and the publication [8] of the draft promotion/reclassification lists in June? And what happens between then and the publication of the final lists in November?
As far as we interact with the system:
- we all have a talk with our line manager (even those who have chosen to transferring the report from the previous year): here’s our guide on how to prepare [9].
- some appraisals will be less positive than expected, or even ‘unsatisfactory’: don’t panic! Here’s are some of the options [10].
- we can appeal [11] our non-inclusion in the draft June list
This presentation builds on our recent presentation on the self-assessment [12] and covers:
- the decision chain and the bodies involved,
- your chances of getting a promotion/reclassification,
- how to successfully file an appeal [11] in June
The annual promotion and reclassification decisions are taken by the Appointing Authority (AIPN), on the basis of
- proposals by each DG;
- recommendations by a Joint Promotion (or reclassification) Committee (JPC).
DGs and JPCs must determine who deserves a promotion/reclassification on the basis of a comparison of merits. While all staff might take part in the appraisal exercise. Only those who are eligible for promotion/reclassification take part in the promotion/reclassification exercises.
| Staff | Appraisal | Reward possible? | Minimum time in grade (‘seniority’) to be eligible | Average speed of reward | 2023
instructions and timetable |
| Officials | Yes | Promotion [13] | 2 years | staff regulations Annex I.B [14] and our chart [15] with those percentages converted to years | Officials and temporary staff [16] |
| Temporary agents [17] (2a and 2d [18] ) | Yes | Reclassification (JRC/GROW/RTD only?) [*] | 2 years | Staff Regulations Annex I.B [14] | Officials and temporary staff [16] |
| Temporary agents (2b, 2c, 2e, 2f [18] ) | Yes | no[**] | Not applicable (N/A) | N/A | Officials and temporary staff [16] |
| Contract Agents [19] 3a | Yes | reclassification [20] | 2 years | Page 3 of Ares(2021)2467829 – 12/04/2021 CSC note on CA 3a [21] | Contract Agents 3a [22] |
| Contract Agents 3b [5] | Yes | no | ≥ 3 years | N/A | Contract Agents 3b [23] |
The comparison of merits on which the promotion procedure is based takes into account:
- the appraisal reports since the last promotion or, failing that, since recruitment [***]
- the use of languages in the execution of duties
- the level of responsibilities exercised (to be taken into consideration on a systematic basis alongside the two other elements).
Unfortunately, the system is more than a little flawed [24] and the system of quotas [25] can have more of an influence on your advancement (or otherwise) than the (ostensible) comparison of merits.
Please remember also that you are evaluated on the time you were present: there should be no mention of your leave of any kind. It does not matter if you were off sick or on parental leave or on holiday, how good was your work while you were present?[****]
For any of you who are concerned about the career development review (CDR) in the context of possible harassment, we appreciate the work of our colleagues in the Harassment Watch Network (HWN):
- 2021, Abuse of the annual appraisal exercise (“CDR”) in the European Commission as tool of psychological harassment with recommendations how to prevent this and better protect the targetted colleagues: second analytical paper [26]
- 2022, My Commission Calvary: Testimonies of harassment at the European Commission [27]
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004 [28].
———————————————————————-
[*] There is a joint committee on reclassification (not promotion) for Temporary Agents (TAs) of JRC/GROW/RTD only. We also see TAs with permanent contracts (yes, mental gymnastics are necessary here: to be permanently temporary) 2a [18]and 2d [18] listed for reclassification.
[**] 16.01.2023 HR response to our questions on TAs: Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS [29]) (Article 15(2)) which states that only the provisions on annual reports [appraisal] from the Staff Regulations [30] (SR) (Article 43) apply by analogy to TAs. By contrast, there is no such provision concerning promotion (SR Article 45). This means that, in principle, TAs are not subject to promotion. This principle is confirmed in the case-law of the General Court (e.g. T-366/15 P [31], paragraph 48).
[***] Probation reports cannot and should not be used for promotion purposes [32].
[****] Update 09.02.2024, we have now found this explicitly stated and so add it here. At most, ‘justified absence’ can be mentioned but no maternity leave, sick leave, health conditions and no comparisons with other colleagues. It’s set out in page 5 of the Drafting the appraisal report A guide for reporting officers [33].
Obsolete updates
Update 05.02.2024 Thanks to the 446 colleagues who attended! We are hear for you! Here is how to prepare for the dialogue [9].
toolTips('.classtoolTips8','A grounds-up initiative of colleagues, created in late 2019, as a response to the problem of harassment within the Commission. HWN wants to see our workplace free of harassment and any other form of violence and discrimination, a place where every colleague feels respected and valued, working in dignity and fully enjoying human rights: to break the silence around harassment, the isolation of colleagues affected by harassment as well as the fear, which many colleagues still have when being confronted with harassment.
Offers self-help group meetings and its advocacy team drafts policy papers and provides input for other entities e.g. the Central Staff Committee, where the HWN is very much appreciated.
Find them here [34], read about them here [35] and consult their publications:
- 2020, Deficiencies of the anti-harassment policy of the European Commission and elements of a true reform: Working papers of the Harassment Watch Network, Volume 1 [36]
- 2021, Abuse of the annual appraisal exercise (“CDR”) in the European Commission as tool of psychological harassment with recommendations how to prevent this and better protect the targetted colleagues: second analytical paper [26]
- 2021, Comments of the Harassment Watch Network on the draft HR strategy [37]
- 2022, Expectations of the Harassment Watch Network with regard to a new Commission Anti-harassment Decision [38]
- 2022, My Commission Calvary: Testimonies of harassment at the European Commission [27]
We nominated the HWN for a 2021 diversity and inclusion Award [39]category 4 Outstanding Staff Group of the Year based on their exceptional dedication and constructive work on this difficult topic. Unfortunately the HWN did not win this time.
'); toolTips('.classtoolTips8','A grounds-up initiative of colleagues, created in late 2019, as a response to the problem of harassment within the Commission. HWN wants to see our workplace free of harassment and any other form of violence and discrimination, a place where every colleague feels respected and valued, working in dignity and fully enjoying human rights: to break the silence around harassment, the isolation of colleagues affected by harassment as well as the fear, which many colleagues still have when being confronted with harassment.
Offers self-help group meetings and its advocacy team drafts policy papers and provides input for other entities e.g. the Central Staff Committee, where the HWN is very much appreciated.
Find them here [34], read about them here [35] and consult their publications:
- 2020, Deficiencies of the anti-harassment policy of the European Commission and elements of a true reform: Working papers of the Harassment Watch Network, Volume 1 [36]
- 2021, Abuse of the annual appraisal exercise (“CDR”) in the European Commission as tool of psychological harassment with recommendations how to prevent this and better protect the targetted colleagues: second analytical paper [26]
- 2021, Comments of the Harassment Watch Network on the draft HR strategy [37]
- 2022, Expectations of the Harassment Watch Network with regard to a new Commission Anti-harassment Decision [38]
- 2022, My Commission Calvary: Testimonies of harassment at the European Commission [27]
We nominated the HWN for a 2021 Diversity and Inclusion Award [39]category 4 Outstanding Staff Group of the Year based on their exceptional dedication and constructive work on this difficult topic. Unfortunately the HWN did not win this time.
'); toolTips('.classtoolTips8','A grounds-up initiative of colleagues, created in late 2019, as a response to the problem of harassment within the Commission. HWN wants to see our workplace free of harassment and any other form of violence and discrimination, a place where every colleague feels respected and valued, working in dignity and fully enjoying human rights: to break the silence around harassment, the isolation of colleagues affected by harassment as well as the fear, which many colleagues still have when being confronted with harassment.
Offers self-help group meetings and its advocacy team drafts policy papers and provides input for other entities e.g. the Central Staff Committee, where the HWN is very much appreciated.
Find them here [34], read about them here [35] and consult their publications:
- 2020, Deficiencies of the anti-harassment policy of the European Commission and elements of a true reform: Working papers of the Harassment Watch Network, Volume 1 [36]
- 2021, Abuse of the annual appraisal exercise (“CDR”) in the European Commission as tool of psychological harassment with recommendations how to prevent this and better protect the targetted colleagues: second analytical paper [26]
- 2021, Comments of the Harassment Watch Network on the draft HR strategy [37]
- 2022, Expectations of the Harassment Watch Network with regard to a new Commission Anti-harassment Decision [38]
- 2022, My Commission Calvary: Testimonies of harassment at the European Commission [27]
We nominated the HWN for a 2021 Diversity and Inclusion Award [39]category 4 Outstanding Staff Group of the Year based on their exceptional dedication and constructive work on this difficult topic. Unfortunately the HWN did not win this time.
'); toolTips('.classtoolTips12','In English psychological harassment is more commonly known as bullying. Here it would be specifically workplace bullying.
The C(2006) 1624/3 [40] Commission decision on the European Commission policy on protecting the dignity of the person and preventing psychological harassment and sexual harassment Section 2.1 lists examples of this behaviour.
The update, C(2023) 8630 [41] Commission decision on the prevention of and fight against psychological and sexual harassment, and repealing Decision C(2006) 1624/3 point 8, page 2 lists examples of this behaviour.
Check out these videos How to tell if you’re being bullied at work? [42] and Workplace bullying [43] for more examples.
'); toolTips('.classtoolTips19','Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (\'Staff Regulations [44] (SR)\') are rules stating:
• fundamental conditions of service
• basic rights, duties and obligations of staff.
The SR have been reformed x 2 (so far):
• 2004 (Kinnock White paper)
• 2014 (Regulation 1023/2013 [45])
For a summary of stated intentions and real outcomes of those two reforms check out: European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019 [46]: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff
'); toolTips('.classtoolTips23','
Contract Agents (CAs) were created by the 2004 Staff Regulations Reform. There are two types of CA: those with unlimited contracts, 3A [47] (‘indefinite’) and those with time-limited contracts [48], 3B [49]. CAs can belong to 4 different function groups (\'GF\') with different responsibilities and salaries [50].
As the use of contract staff becomes increasingly common, there has been a corresponding increase in the diversity of status and pay of the Commission’s workforce. For example, GFIV contract staff meeting the same minimum recruitment requirements (education and experience) as junior administrators may earn 28 % less. (European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019 [46]: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff, point 61, page 34)
We have a working group dedicated to the dossier, and in December 2012 we addressed the first of many letters (\'notes\') about Contract Agents to Human Resources of all Institutions and agencies [51] (here is the cover e-mail [52]).
As a background you can see the report of the Commission to the Council regarding the recruitment of the contract agents in 2010 [53] (in French, COM(2011)802 final 23.11.2011).
Our articles on Contract Agents [54]
'); 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 [55]) or to the Local Staff Committee (LSC): Brusels, Luxembourg, Ispra/Seville, Karlsruhe, Petten, Geel, France and Outside the Union (\'hors Union\'/\'CLP-HU\').'); toolTips('.classtoolTips44','Conditions of Employment of Other Servants [29]');