New Decision on Working Time and Teleworking: service à la carte = discrimination! [1]
Two months into the implementation of the new Decision, Generation 2004 has already received many complaints from colleagues whose Directorate General (DG) has a restrictive reading of the decision. According to the information we have received, several DGs and services, including DG GROW, DG TAXUD, OIL and the Legal Service, have drafted – or are drafting – guidelines that set up an obligation to come to the office 3 or even 4 days per week, to the dismay of many among their staff. Often the reason given is a generic “interest of the service”, without offering any specific details and consulting staff, while such need was not necessary prior to the pandemic. And without carrying out an analysis based on different types of jobs or tasks inside the DG or service.
There are clearly some jobs that cannot be performed remotely, or that require frequent physical presence in the office. There can also be times during the year when it is important for a team to meet in person on a more regular basis. But imposing 3/4 days a week in the office as a blanket rule to a whole DG/service without considering the specific needs of the different jobs cannot be justified in the light of the spirit of trust, flexibility and better work-life balance that is supposed to be the cornerstone of the new Decision on Working Time and Teleworking.
The irony of this situation is that, in spite of all the willingness declared by the administration to establish a modern management culture, the new conditions imposed on colleagues working for these DGs are even stricter that before. In fact, the previous rules on teleworking allowed the so-called structural teleworking, which granted colleagues up to 50% of teleworking time (2,5 days per week). Today, 2 days out of 5 corresponds only to 40%. Apart from that there were a further 60 days of occasional teleworking available, and these could be coupled with the structural teleworking. In theory colleagues could on average teleworking more than 3,5 days per week which was more than the current general obligation to be 2 days per week in the office. So, the colleagues in the Commission services that work 3 or even 4 days per week in the office and in some cases without a choice of the days, are much worse off under the new rules and can rightly ask: where did the trust-based management, flexibility and equal treatment promised by DG HR go!
Generation 2004 believes that this restrictive interpretation of the new decision is neither in line with the spirit of the in-depth negotiations we had with DG HR on the text, nor is it in line with the trust-based management it was supposed to bring to the Commission. What is DG HR doing to prevent an uneven and discriminatory application of the new Decision? How is it bringing to life this longed-for trust-based management? [2]
Additionally, the fact that the schedule for teleworking has to be defined on a weekly basis is also introducing a strong element of restriction and rigidity. Many colleagues, including managers, are calling for a more flexible schedule that would allow dealing with several situations, including for example divorced parents having a biweekly schedule for the care of their children. Biweekly schedule was also possible under structural teleworking before. Thus, there is yet another restriction for some.
The very moment Generation 2004 laid eyes on the first draft of this decision, we predicted the possibility of an inconsistent application of the Decision as it gives far too much discretionary power to DGs and middle management alike. In all negotiations meetings we had on this decision – from the technical level up to the meeting with Commissioner Hahn, we pledged for:
- a strong role of DG HR to ensure fairness of treatment among staff;
- training of managers to the concepts behind the new culture of trust it wanted to set up; and
- a close follow-up on any issues related to its implementation.
We pointed out that a ‘new culture’ cannot simply be set up with just a few days of training but requires a full paradigm shift. For this reason, we strongly requested to be associated to the drafting of the general implementing guidelines to the decision and to have a joint committee to watch the implementation of the decision.
Unfortunately, none of them has been set up yet. According to the info we received from DG HR, the general implementing guidelines will only be drafted around the end of the year: so basically, this means they will not be guidelines aimed at clarifying and specifying points in the decision before it is implemented, but most probably a collection of best practices coming from the first 6 months of experience. The main problem with this approach is that DGs are left without concrete information on many points of the decision and will then apply it based on the existing culture of the DG or even the individual units.
However, art. 17 of the Decision stipulates that:
DG HR shall be responsible for monitoring the effective implementation and compliance with this Decision within the Commission and shall ensure that it is applied consistently by: d) regular contacts with the HR Business Correspondents; e) consultation of the COPEC, the Joint Committee on Prevention and Protection at Work, the security and hygiene committees, and the Joint Committee on Hybrid Working; f) issuing the Guidelines referred to in Article 2(1).
Concerning the Joint Committee on flexible Working, it is aimed at monitoring the implementation of the decision and issue “recommendations addressed to the Director-General responsible for human resources in case it detects inconsistencies and/or unequal treatment in the implementation of this Decision by the Directorates-General.” As its members – 50% from the administration and 50% from the staff representation – have not been nominated yet, it practically exists only on paper, so any monitoring of implementation as provided for in the Decision is currently impossible.
Generation 2004 stands ready to contribute to the drafting of guidelines and nominating members in the joint committee and calls on the administration to put in place as soon as possible these two elements – guidelines and joint committee – that are legal requirements put forward in the decision. And above all, to ensure that all colleagues are treated fairly and that these changes in working time rules do not create a vicious circle of pushing colleagues to leave those DGs that are less flexible. This is already the case as it was reported to us by the colleagues.
Career choices should not be driven by the (lack of) flexibility of some senior managers…or by the very contested imposition of hotdesking!
If you want to make your voice heard, complete our survey on the new normal working conditions. And as usual, if you have any comments or would like to share your experience, get in touch with us!
[1] Update 20.07.2022 In the absence of general guidelines for the working-time decision, DGs and agencies are doing their own thing and drafting their own guidelines, leading to differences in interpretation and application of the rules.
- Eurostat: staff are to be present on 2 fixed days set for 6 months,
- Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL) staff are expected to spend a minimum of 16 hours in the office over 3 days,
- DG SANTE: staff continue with the 2 days of presence introduced in March 2022.
[2] Update 20.07.2022 These are some of the many outstanding issues we put forward reasons to continue negotiating the working time decision. We have not yet seen any training plan for managers of remote teams. If you see something appear on EUlearn please get in touch with us!
