The employment proposals are part of the “extreme” situation at the office, that Union Syndicale Fédérale highlighted in a recent letter.
Brought by EPO president Benoît Battistelli and principal director of human resources, Elodie Bergot, the proposals were criticised by the office’s Central Staff Committee for being “far-reaching”.
Article 53(1)(f) of the proposal would have given the EPO the ability to terminate the service of an employee if the “exigencies of the service require abolition of their post or a reduction in staff”.
However, at the end of February, the proposal was halted and the article was withdrawn.
In a letter to its members, SUEPO said that the original proposal generated “a great turmoil among staff”.
It added: “Trust in management is gone. The few souls who were still putting some trust in EPO management have had a rude awakening.
“Bergot and Battistelli have just demonstrated that staff cannot rely on the office respecting even the most sacred aspects of their working conditions.”
“Trust in the administrative council is gone. This time, the board 28 has dared to resist an (outgoing) President and blocked article 53(1)(f), but what will happen next time crazy ideas are pushed by the EPO management? By now, the Administrative Council has built the (deserved) reputation of being fickle and weak, unable or unwilling to supervise efficiently the office.”
SUEPO also argued that staff’s trust in justice has been lost, stating: “As for the incredibly slow EPO “justice” system, it is structurally and politically unable to defend staff’s most basic rights. What is the point in being proven right five to ten years after your boss has grossly misbehaved, for example by unlawfully terminating your ‘permanent’ employment unilaterally?”
The union also highlighted a communique from Battistelli, in which he claimed that he had convinced the administrative council to abandon article 53(1)(f).
Battistelli said: “In any event, I understood that it caused of great deal of [sic] concerns among the staff and this is why I have convinced the [administrative council] during its second meeting on [21 February] to abandon it.”
Despite the removal of article 53(1)(f), SUEPO said that the current version of the proposal is still not acceptable, “as it contains many objectionable changes (like the possibility to hire EPO staff under 5-years contract for a total duration of 10 years before possibly becoming ‘permanent’)”.
It added: “In any event, the episode is significant for its effect on the EPO community. The words of article 53(1)(f) will not be in our Codex, but are engraved in everybody’s mind.”
