Unfair distribution of promotion quotas

If promotion quotas were distributed equally and without discrimination by DG HR, then each function group (FG) – administrator (AD), assistant (AST), and secretaries and clerks (AST/SC) – would have the same or a very similar ratio of promotion quotas to eligible staff (those with a minimum of 2 years in the grade) [1].

Since this information is not publicly available, we had to politely and firmly insist that DG HR release the relevant statistics by making an access to documents request.

Based on the information provided by DG HR, we have prepared the table below showing the comparison of the promotion proposals made by DGs (which are equal to the promotion quotas allocated by DG HR to DGs) and staff eligible for promotion during the last seven promotion exercises.

As regards promotion exercises 2015-2021, the average of the comparisons of promotion quotas to eligible staff is 38.24% for FG AD (a ratio of 1 promotion for every 2.6 eligible staff members) and 37.28% for FG AST (a ratio of 1:2.7).

Despite the fact that there were staff members eligible for promotion in FG AST/SC, DG HR decided to allocate zero promotion quotas to DGs in years 2017, 2018 and 2019. In 2020, DG HR, for the first time, allocated a promotion quota for those staff: a ratio of 1:3.8 (26.25%) meaning that in the AST/SC function group there were significantly more staff chasing fewer promotions than in the other groups (37.28% for FG AD (1:2.7) and 36.00% for FG AST (1:2.8)).

In 2021 [2], even though the eligible staff population in FG AST/SC was increasing, DG HR allocated to DGs a disproportionately lower quota for the promotion of AST/SC staff, so that the ratio of promotion quota to eligible AST/SC staff members was only 1 promotion for every 5.7 eligible staff members (17.61%) – proportionately, less than half of the quotas allocated to the other function groups in the same exercise (39.19% for FG AD and 35.87% for FG AST).

The above facts clearly show that, in terms of promotion opportunities, AST/SC staff members are treated unequally and unfairly.

We urge DG HR to immediately stop the unfair and discriminatory treatment of AST/SC staff members as regards promotion opportunities.

If you agree with the above, please consider supporting our petition to the European Parliament to improve the situation of our AST/SC colleagues.

[1] Thanks to our local agent colleague for highlighting the very poor promotion figures for those in representations. We are checking this out and will write on this topic.

year quota promoted Changed category
2020 3 3 0
2019 3 3 1
2018 3 3 2
2017 5 5 1
2016 5 5 2
2015 5 5 1
2014 5 5 1
2013 6 6 2
2012 5 5 2
2011 7 7 0
2010 ? ? ?
2009 8 8 0
2008 9 7 1
[2] The next steps in the 2021 reclassification and promotion exercises are:

  • mid-November: publication of final lists  (check administrative notices or email)
  • December: changes visible in pay slip.



Leave a Reply