Update 07.07.2025: In the meantime, the Head of Unit responsible for sacking the two Contract Agents and previously accused of harassing a number of other colleagues has been proposed for promotion with just two years of seniority in the grade, two years less than the average in that grade. What do we learn from that?

Despite their claims to the contrary, JRC management not only continues to turn a blind eye to inappropriate behaviour, but practically encourages it.

Original article: The Joint Research Centre (JRC) prides itself on pursuing a people-centric staff policy. On the ground, the reality is altogether different. Two contract agents (CAs) had to experience this first-hand when the JRC sacked them in quick succession for allegedly inadequate performance. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, it happened in a unit where a number of colleagues had already been complaining to the administration about harassment by the then head of unit.  

Weak grounds 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the evidence that Generation2004 was allowed to see suggests that the reasoning provided for dismissing the two colleagues is weak. More remarkably, both dismissals were issued several weeks after the end of the colleagues’ probationary period and then with a notice period of less than one month[*]. In one case, it was even only a few days.  

Generation2004 believes that this violates the employment conditions of Contract Agents (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, CEOS). And it would mean that the sword of Damocles of immediate dismissal hangs permanently over the head of every CA with a negative final report, even weeks or months after the probationary period[**]. 

The relevant provisions of the CEOS are actually crystal clear. Every CA has to receive at least one month before the end of the probationary period a final report. If that report is negative, the CA can be dismissed and, if this happens, is entitled to a compensation equal to 3 months’ salary. After the probationary period has ended, the contract may be terminated without justification, provided that at least one month’s notice is given.  

Importantly, the Commission has then to pay a much bigger compensation. For a dismissal after the end of the probationary period, this is one third of the basic salary for the period between the date on which his duties end and the date on which the contract expires[***]. For a CA with a 3-year contract, the compensation would thus amount to a maximum of 9 months’ salary. 

In essence, this means that once the probationary period has come to an end, the employment contract can no longer be terminated with reference to the performance during the probationary period[****]. Yet this is precisely what the JRC has done – without giving reasons as to why this should be compatible with the CEOS. 

Peoplecentric? 

In the absence of any justification, we can only speculate about the grounds. Ignorance of the legal provisions? Indifference in view of the difficulties for a CA to enforce her rights? Or was it ultimately just a question of saving money (long term, given the compensation costs listed above) at the expense of those affected, no matter what?  

In any case, the two colleagues concerned face a very difficult situation. It is much harder to find a new job if you are dismissed during your probationary period. The employer is not going to write a glowing letter of recommendation. Add to this a situation of staff who might have several children, any one of whom might have special needs, for whom a new school has to be found at short notice because the European Schools are extremely expensive for non-staff, and you get an idea of the harsh reality to which the JRC has exposed the two colleagues.  

What can individuals do?

So be aware: if you are a CA (or any type of statutory staff) on probation anywhere in the Commission and you have received a negative mid-term report (launched at the end of the 4th month; see more info here: Probationary Periods overview of procedure), you should urgently speak with your line manager in order to find a solution. In addition, it is crucial that you ask for further support and advice from your staff representatives. You should not wait for the final Probation Report to ask for support, as that might be too late. 

No lessons learned! 

But there is another lesson to be learned from the fate of the two colleagues. If you point the finger at others, you are also pointing it at yourself. After all, an unsatisfactory probationary period can have many reasons other than incompetence. And this is indeed what the evidence in the JRC cases suggests. 

Requirements may not have been sufficiently formulated or checked at the time of recruitment. Tasks and objectives may not have been clearly communicated. And adequate supervision and guidance may have been lacking. Whatever the reasons, it can hardly be a coincidence that the two people came from the same JRC unit. An in-depth investigation of these reasons would be people-centric true to its name. So far, there is no evidence of either. Instead, one of the key actors in the whole affair became recently an official. Honi soit qui mal y pense. 

Incidentally, the aforementioned head of unit was apparently not even afraid to denounce former colleagues to their new employers, as Generation2004 learned from conversations with several of former staff-members, who spoke to us on the condition of confidentiality. However, if you are now wondering what happened to the harassment complaints made to the administration, look under one of the plush carpets at JRC headquarters. 

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

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

——————————————————————————

[*] CEOS Article 119: termination of employment

Articles 47 to 50a shall apply by analogy to contract staff.

The period of notice shall not be less than one month per year of service, subject to a minimum of one month and a maximum of three months … (Article 47(b)ii)

[**] Check the ‘Unsuccessful probation’ section for Contract Agents (3A and 3B), Temporary agents and Officials for information on the process.

[***]

… If the institution terminates the contract, the servant shall be entitled to compensation equal to one-third of his basic salary for the period between the date when his duties end and the date when his contract expires; (Article 47(b)ii)

[****] On this topic: probationary reports cannot and should not be used for promotion/reclassification decisions either: there’s established jurisprudence confirming this.