The old guard and the Commission promotion exercise

Since its inception in 2012, Generation 2004 has been constructively critical of the Commission’s promotion exercise. We believe this exercise is flawed in several ways and that it should be reviewed and updated to a more transparent and fair system. We feel so strongly about this that we have taken the Commission to court over the matter. The court agreed with the Commission and issued a negative ruling for Generation 2004 on the premise that the Commission knows better how to manage its business, and this was so despite the fact that the widely arbitrary and very opaque attribution of promotions quotas per directorate general (DG) does not fulfil the staff regulations requirement that there be an institution-wide comparison of merit among all promotable officials [1].

Following this ruling, Generation 2004 took the decision to fight this situation from within the Commission. In this fight we have, for quite a few years, consistently done two things:

  • Despite our heavy involvement and very positive work in the meetings with Director Generals and in the Joint Promotions Committee (JPC) workgroups, we believe that approving the results of the exercise would amount to endorsing a flawed procedure. Therefore, we have consistently abstained in the vote of the final results of the yearly promotions exercise joint committee. This is of course a protest vote that has never in any way endangered the positive outcome of the promotion exercise [2].
  • We have requested that a specific text (‘minority opinion/position’) be published in Sysper2, an opinion that is visible to those that appeal their non-proposal for promotion:

Minority position: comments (optional)
1. There is no evidence that an Institution-wide comparison of merit took place at Joint Preparatory Group and Join Promotion Committee level.
2. An ex-ante-allocation of promotion possibilities among DGs is incompatible with an Institution-wide comparison of merits.
3. The variable quality of reports does not allow for transparent and reproducible comparisons of merit.

This text reflects our opinion on the promotions system, it in no way reflects on any individual.

Last year however, when the Generation 2004 members of the JPC once more abstained at the vote and asked for the minority position to be recorded, some members of the Staff Representation from other trade unions and staff associations (OSP) raised their voices in amnesic outrage.

Nearly one year on, and the final JPC meeting is approaching soon (18 October), there comes yet another attack on Generation 2004’s minority position. The Commission’s Central Staff Committee (CSC) which, based on proportionality of representativeness of the OSPs [3], nominates the members of the JPC, has just voted in favour of a motion to try to put a gag order on Generation 2004. Basically, the CSC majority is, in the most undemocratic way, trying to force the members of the JPC to stop expressing their personal views and impose the majority view. Generation 2004 is not yet 100% sure how it will react to the current situation and what we will do in the upcoming JPC meeting of 18 October. But, right now, we are in the process of asking the Commission Legal Service to check the legality of this motion, which we believe sets a very dangerous precedent for the functioning of any other Joint Committees. Quite frankly, this is the kind of move that we are only used to see in regimes that, to remain polite, are not famous for their democratic practices.

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.

To stay informed, please follow us on social media:

Generation 2004 (@2004generation) / Twitter

Generation 2004 – Startpagina | Facebook

—————————————————————

[1] The annual promotion procedure is based on the comparative examination of the merits of those officials eligible for promotion. Administrative Notice N° 15-2021 / 07.04.2021

[2] Each member of the committee has three voting options: for, against or abstain. We at Generation 2004 believe that a positive vote is an endorsement of the promotions system as a whole and not just of the part we negotiate with HR.

[3] We have 27.6% of the representativeness of the Commission, which translates to 9 of the 40 seats at the CSC.

Leave a Reply