The current General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) – C(2017)6760 governing the working conditions of Contract Agents (CAs) have been in place since 2017. While these provisions contributed to better alignment of rules between CAs (3a and 3b), they still reflect some systemic inequalities faced by contract staff, who remain the most undervalued and exploited staff category.
‘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 than the latter. Currently around 6 % of staff, all of them GFI and GFII contract staff, earn less than the lowest paid official (AST/SC1, with a basic yearly salary around €32 400). Another third of staff (across all categories) earn up to twice that amount.’ (European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff, Paragraph 61)
Indeed, given the recent conclusion of the social dialogue on the temporary agent (TA) decision, let us hope that subsequently some long-overdue attention will be devoted to contract agents. There is a general interest and agreement with other trade unions and staff associations (OSPs) in that matter.
This article outlines the main changes (note that this list is not exhaustive [1]) that Generation 2004 believes could be achieved via a renegotiation of GIPs, if such a discussion were to take place and the administration were to be genuinely open to suggestions. While we cannot expect a renegotiation of the GIPs to transform the overall status of contract staff (and as announced by postulate 2 for CAs), we do believe it presents an opportunity to introduce meaningful, targeted improvements, especially in the areas of classification upon grade, contract renewal, function group upgrades and mobility.
Reinforcement of function-group upgrades via screening (Article 13)
The GIPs 2017 introduced a new mechanism for changing function groups for CA 3a staff, so-called screening. Unfortunately, this mechanism is reserved to CA3a and has been used only to a very limited extent.[2] It is currently defined as exceptional and, according to the FAQ on GIPs 2017 available as needed and intended to be used in the interest of the service. And it is very much needed. Indeed, contract agents currently have very limited opportunities for advancement. Reclassifications are limited and slow, and the average time required for reclassification within the higher grades of each function group can take up to eight years (the average speeds for the highest grades).
Wider and more consistent use of this mechanism would provide valuable career development opportunities for contract agents. The renegotiation of the GIPs could help by removing the “exceptional” label and extending eligibility to CA 3b staff, who are currently excluded from screening (and reclassification!) altogether. This exercise should be set out as a regular and meaningful procedure, embedded in the budget planning process. At present, its irregular and unpredictable nature means it is largely underused, despite the clear need.
The importance of screening was also discussed during the Brussels Local Staff Committee plenary session on 1 July.
Faster transition to permanent (‘indefinite’) contracts (Article 7)
Under current provisions, CA 3a staff are initially engaged for a period of at least one year and at most two years, or in the case of delegations and representations, for at least two and at most three years. Upon renewal, contracts must last at least one year; a second renewal results in an indefinite contract.
The renegotiation of GIPs 2017 should aim to reduce the total duration of engagement required before a contract is converted to indefinite status for example, by limiting the duration of the second contract. This change would be especially welcomed in Delegations and Representations. Generation 2004 has been approached by colleagues from Representations on this matter. The issue was raised during the Brussels Local Staff Committee meeting on 10 June in discussions with DG COMM representatives.
Contract agents 3a already perform permanent tasks, in many places identical to those of officials, who are not requested to wait sometimes 6 years before their contract is permanent. Renegotiation of GIPs could impose certain limits in that direction (that do not breach the provisions of CEOS) and promote more equal treatment in that respect of all CAs engaged by the institution.
Reinterpretation of maximum engagement duration for CA 3b in different function groups (Article 8)
Article 88 of the CEOS stipulates that the total period of employment within an institution for CA 3b staff must not exceed six years. However, this rule appears to be worded too broadly and has left room for interpretation. This is why article 8(4) of the GIPs 2017 further specifies that this six-year limit applies across all function groups combined, under a CA 3b contract.
Generation 2004 believes there is room for discussion concerning these provisions in GIPs: the limit should apply separately to each function group. After all, a change in function group involves the signing of a new contract. In practice, such a change is not seen as a continuation of one’s career [2], earlier service as a CA 3b is not considered for seniority or reclassification purposes, even where proportional recognition would be reasonable.
We agree however, that limitations should instead be still governed by the rules on the use of non-permanent staff, which themselves should be re-evaluated and adjusted. The possibility of going beyond the standard 6 (or then 7) years on non-permanent contracts (for example on TA after a CA3b), if justified by the interest of the service, has been allowed since end 2011 by the Commission decision C(2011)7071 (§5 under article 1) of 5 October 2011.
Smaller/shorter work experience groupings (‘brackets’) for recruitment grades (Article 5)
GIPs 2017 aligned recruitment grading rules for CA 3a and CA 3b, which was a positive step. However, the current grading system remains problematic. Not all grades are considered for recruitment, which can result in a downgrade when moving between contracts. For example, a colleague moving from CA 3a to CA 3b and back to CA3a again in certain instances may end up in a lower grade than before moving to CA3b contract.
Additionally, the experience brackets for certain grades are overly broad. For example, for an FG IV, both a colleague with 5 years and another with up to 17 years of experience may be placed in the same grade. This is clearly illogical. Although it is not possible to add new recruitment grades (at least not for CA3a since recruitment grades are fixed in Article 86 of CEOS) through a renegotiation of GIPs 2017, it would be reasonable to at least reduce the experience thresholds for existing grades.
Regular grade revision upon contract renewals (Article 5)
Currently, grading for CA 3a staff is not revised during the contract period; for them grade changes are only possible through reclassification (promotion). For CA 3b staff (no reclassification available), grading may be revised upon renewal of a contract, but only if the staff member has been employed for at least three years and is in the lowest grade of their function group.
These rules can be particularly unfair to staff who miss a higher-grade threshold by only one or two years of experience. For example, a colleague with 16 years of experience in FG IV may be classified at grade 14 instead of grade 16 (grade 15 not being available as recruitment grade). Promotion from grade 14 to 16 would then take place after 9 years: 4 years to move from 14 to 15 and another 5 to reach 16. This is clearly unreasonable.
| Staff | Appraisal | Grade revision process | Minimum time in grade (‘seniority’) to be eligible | Average speed of reward |
| Contract Agents 3a | Yes | reclassification | 2 years | Page 3 of Ares(2021)2467829 – 12/04/2021 CSC note on CA 3a |
| Contract Agents 3b | Yes | renewal of a contract BUT only if the staff member
|
≤ 3 years | N/A |
Grade revisions should be carried out at each contract change or renewal, without additional restrictions or hoops to jump through.
Simplifying grading in case of contract succession (Annex iii, Articles 1–8)
GIPs 2017 outlines grading rules based on contract type and function group. Staff may be graded either according to years of experience (Article 5) or retain a more advantageous grade from a previous contract (Article 4 of Annex III). However, this system disproportionately benefits moves from a CA 3a contract.
For example, a staff member with extensive experience may start as CA 3a in FG II at grade 5. After years of service and reclassifications, they reach grade 7. They later move to a CA 3b contract within the Commission, preserving their grade and step. However, upon returning to CA 3a, they are reclassified at grade 5 (the highest recruitment grade available for FG II) resulting in a salary loss of nearly €1,000 per month. This, despite performing always permanent tasks, being engaged under the same CAST and even if there are with no break in service (or payment of pension contributions).
This system lacks fairness and logic. Preservation of grade and step, when more advantageous, should be available to all contract staff in all contract transitions.
Improve (‘reinforce’) job mobility (Article 14)
GIPs 2017 aimed to improve mobility for CA 3a staff within the Commission and between Commission departments and executive agencies (EA). While some rule harmonisation occurred, CA job mobility (especially into and out of executive agencies) remains problematic.
Job mobility of CA3a is limited by differing staff structures in places which recruit them. Offices rely heavily (70–85%) on CA staff in FG I and II, many with technical roles. Executive agencies engage more FG III and IV staff, with FG IV virtually absent in Offices[3]. This imbalance limits mobility between the two.
EU Delegations (EEAS) often employ FG IV staff, and Permanent Representations rely heavily on FG II staff. Some mobility would be possible between these two and Offices and EAs, but normally it would require a location change. Many CA 3b staff in the Commission would like to transition to CA 3a positions in EAs, since CA 3b contracts are time limited. An agency might later decide to include a CA3B colleague in the selection, if they have the same function group, and internal selection is not successful. If a CA3B would like to move to an EA from the Commission into a higher function group, there is no advantage whatsoever in terms of priority. One will normally be treated as an external candidate, and in some cases, one might not even be eligible to apply on jobs openings identified on CA3a Job Market or EA-internal webpages (as they may have defined recruitment priority).
The CA job mobility market needs reform. Access should be broadened, and restrictions lifted, also to allow easier access to higher function groups upon re-recruitment.
Conclusions
The current GIPs for CAs are far from perfect, and while their renegotiation will not solve the deep-rooted structural issues affecting contract agents, it represents a rare opportunity to secure tangible improvements. From introducing more transparent and equitable grading to reinforcing internal mobility and shortening the path to long-term job security. Contract Agents deserve more than a system that, whether intentionally or not, consistently limits their growth and undervalues their work.
Generation 2004 will continue to advocate for contract agents and push for a more equitable future. Renegotiating the GIPs would be an essential step in that direction.
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.
———————————————-
[1] We’ve been making noise about this for some time. Check out our 2021 petition at the European Parliament. There was enough interest for the topic to be discussed there, but no action was taken, unfortunately.
[2] An upgrade via screening was also considered to be a new contract and not an upgrade for Mr Picard, changing his retirement age and pension accrual rate. He won his case at the Court of Justice.
[3] ‘Offices’ is used in this context to mean specific services such as OIB, OIL or the PMO but not EPSO, the OP or OLAF.
