The Joint Research Centre (JRC) prides itself on pursuing a people-centric staff policy. On the ground, the reality is different. Two Contract Agents [1] (CAs) had to experience this first-hand when they were dismissed in quick succession for allegedly inadequate performance.
According to the evidence that Generation2004 was able to see, the accusations made against the two colleagues stand on weak grounds. More remarkably, both dismissals were issued several weeks after the end of the colleagues’ probationary period [2] 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 is a blatant violation of the pertinent employment conditions (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, CEOS). And it would mean that the sword of Damocles of immediate termination would permanently hang over the head of every CA with a negative final report, even weeks or months after the end of the probationary period.
The relevant provisions of the CEOS are actually crystal clear. Every CA has to receive a final report at least one month before the end of the probationary period. If that report is negative, the CA can be dismissed and is entitled to a compensation equal to 3 months’ salary. After the end of the probationary period, the contract may be terminated without justification, provided that at least one month’s notice is given. Importantly, a much bigger compensation has then to be paid. For such a dismissal, 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.
However, 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. An end-of-probation report is not for general consultation [3]: its purpose is specific and limited. Nevertheless, the JRC appears to have done just that: without giving any reasons as to why this should be compatible with the CEOS.
We can only speculate about the grounds used to justify this way of proceeding. Ignorance of the legal provisions? Indifference in view of the difficulties for a CA to enforce their rights? Or was it ultimately just a question of saving money at the expense of those affected, no matter what?
In any case, the two colleagues concerned are already in a very difficult situation. It is much harder to find a new job if you are dismissed after a short time, the experience has to go on your CV, but how to explain it without looking bad? The former employer is not going to write a glowing letter of recommendation. Add to this the EU institutions’ interlinking of employment, schooling, social security and allowances and you have a huge mess. The timing of this dismissal would be terrible for any parent: a new school has to be found at short notice because the European School is extremely expensive for non-staff. Between the two (now former) colleagues, there are several children: you get an idea of the harsh reality to which the JRC has exposed the two colleagues.
So be aware: if you are a CA 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 [4]), 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 [5]. Please don’t wait for the final Probation Report to ask for support: that might be too late!
But there is another lesson to be learned from the fate of the two colleagues. If you point the finger at others, you are pointing it at yourself. After all, an unsatisfactory probationary period can have reasons other than incompetence. For example, requirements may not have been sufficiently formulated or checked at the time of recruitment. Or tasks and objectives were not clearly communicated. Or there was a lack of adequate supervision and guidance. Check the managers’ probation checklist [6] to see what probationers are supposed to be able to expect in terms of structure and support. Whatever the reasons may have been, it can hardly be a coincidence that the two people concerned came from the same JRC unit. Exploring these reasons would also be people-centric true to its name.
For any other questions, do not hesitate to get in touch [7] or leave a comment below.
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004 [8]