The launch of the recent AD6 and AD7 internal competitions has once again highlighted a long-standing inconsistency in the Commission’s approach to career development.
While temporary agents remain broadly eligible, many AST officials continue to be excluded from specialist competitions despite performing equivalent duties and often possessing extensive institutional experience. Similarly, Contract Agents face consequences of regulatory restrictions, despite the recently published and awaited AD completion in which FG IV could participate.
The latest example is the AD6 specialist competition for case handlers. Across the Commission, many AST colleagues perform highly specialised policy, operational and case-handling functions. Yet, many were not allowed to take part.
This situation is difficult to reconcile with the Commission’s own ambitions. In the context of the Large Scale Review, the administration repeatedly speaks about talent management, skills, mobility and creating a more modern organisation. Senior management has recognised the need for more inclusive career paths across staff categories.
However, the reality is still very different.
Many AST colleagues have spent years, and in some cases decades, carrying out responsibilities comparable to those of AD colleagues. Their appraisal reports recognize their ability and expertise, and their managers rely on their knowledge. Yet when career opportunities arise, administrative barriers continue to prevent them from competing for a permanent position.
The contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.
A modern administration should not first ask whether a colleague belongs to the AD, AST, TA or CA category. It should ask whether that colleague possesses the competencies, experience and potential required for the job.
Generation 2004 consistently supported the opening of career opportunities for all staff categories. We welcome broader access for contract agents and temporary agents. However, these positive developments cannot justify the continued exclusion of experienced AST officials from specialist competitions.
At a time when the Commission faces recruitment challenges and an unprecedented retirement wave, systematically overlooking experienced internal talent is not only unfair to the individuals concerned, but also risks wasting expertise already available within the institution and misusing the budget entrusted to it.
Talent management cannot be selective. If the Commission wishes to become a genuinely skills-based organisation, it must ensure that all colleagues with the necessary competencies have a fair opportunity to compete.
toolTips('.classtoolTips23','Contract Agents (CAs) were created by the 2004 staff regulations Reform. There are two types of CA: those with unlimited contracts, 3A [1] (‘indefinite’) and those with time-limited contracts [2], 3B [3]. CAs can belong to 4 different function groups (\'GF\') with different responsibilities and salaries [4].
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 [5]: 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 [6] (here is the cover e-mail [7]).
As a background you can see the report of the Commission to the Council regarding the recruitment of the contract agents in 2010 [8] (in French, COM(2011)802 final 23.11.2011).
');