1. Reform of Staff Regulations and of its Annex X Negotiated at the expense of working conditions of all expatriate staff in Delegations & Offices outside the EU: grim for Officials manifestly discriminatory for low-grade Assistants & Contract Agents ! Likely result: More losses than savings Outside the Union Section Staff Committee CLP-HU Presentation on the negative impact of the Staff Regulations reform and in view of negotiating the GIPs, Brussels, October 2013 Outside the Union Section Staff Committee CLP-HU Presentation on the negative impact of the Staff Regulations reform and in view of negotiating the GIPs, Brussels, October 2013

2. CLP-HU presentation on reform impact over staff 1 Analysis reveals discrimination outside EU 2 Three forms of discrimination on CAs 3a 3 Legal risks of discrimination = NO SAVINGS 4 CLP-HU’s proposals 1 Analysis reveals discrimination outside EU 2 Three forms of discrimination on CAs 3a 3 Legal risks of discrimination = NO SAVINGS 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

3. Part 1 Analysis reveals discrimination outside EU

4. Modifications to Staff Regulations have been agreed upon at the expense of all staff who work outside the EU and without due social dialogue. For low-grade AST Officials and Contract Agents posted to Delegations (CAs type 3a) the impact of changes to Annex X are D i S P R O P O R T i O N A T E and unfair. Part 1 Analysis reveals discrimination outside EU

5. Del-based staffEU-based staff

6. Reform will not result in net savings, instead it will: render delegation posts unviable for women and staff with dependants and the more vulnerable staff categories. Many highly-qualified staff will resign. Oblige CAs and low-grade ASTs to stop undertaking AD-level tasks without compensation. This practice has been ensuring the functioning & business continuity in Delegations at no-cost which will have to be incurred. Provoke braindrain: now, an EU CA FGIV compares to a UN P4 in terms of responsibility but to lower UN P2 in terms of salary and benefits. After the reform, it will be even less competitive. Who will stay in the EU system? Part 1 Analysis reveals discrimination outside EU

7. CAs are i n c r e a s i n gl y frustrated by the lack of correspondence between actual responsibility, merit, achievement and the incomprehensible and discriminatory absence of career prospects.career prospects. Part 1 Analysis reveals discrimination outside EU

8. -CAs in 23 Delegations have committed to 'W.O.R.K. T.O. R.U.L.E.' -The EC and the EEAS might have to cover with one additional AD for every three CAs to ensure business continuity. -95% of CAs are ready to follow-up should the GIPs be unsatisfactory. Barbados, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ghana, India, Kenya, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Island, Somalia, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and counting… Part 1 Analysis reveals discrimination outside EU

9. Part 2 Three forms of discrimination on CAs 3a

10. 1. CAs 3a in Delegations will suffer the largest relative purchasing power reduction despite systematically undertaking AD tasks (at all levels) essential to ensure business continuity. If we account for the radical cuts on leave as unpaid work the unfair allocation of the burden is even more discriminatory! Part 2 Three forms of discrimination on CAs 3a

11. Del-based staffEU-based staff

12. 2. Contract Agents 3a in Delegations will be hurt permanently with an even larger relative reduction of their purchasing power per time worked over the next ten years …making any equivalent jobs in other International Organisation much more appealing for most CA Cat IV who are highly-qualified EU staff… Part 2 Three forms of CA 3a discrimination

13. Del-based staffEU-based staff

14. 3. The reform contradicts the original justification for CAs 3a having lower basic salaries than CAs 3b, which relied on the compensatory entitlements provided for by Annex X, now being slashed by the reform. Part 2 Three forms of CA 3a discrimination

15. But what are EU citizens asking for and what did EU Statesmen point at when complaining that "…too many top Officials in the EU earn more than Merkel and Cameron…"? Part 2 Three forms of CA 3a discrimination

16. Del-based staffEU-based staff

17. Part 3 Legal implications of discrimination = NO SAVINGS

18. The extent and unfair nature of the regulatory modifications over CAs 3a in Delegations is such that they will be in a position to confidently legally challenge the changes as a breach of contract based on: LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS and disrespect of the PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY Part 3 Legal implications of discrimination = SAVING

19. Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

20. Condemning the premeditated lack of social dialogue concerning the reform of the Staff Regulations namely Annex X, the CLP-HU proposes the following: Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

21. 1. To guarantee that regulatory modifications not only imply proportionally fair sacrifices but moreover, that they do not imply social exclusion or breach of legitimate expectations. That women, families and lower-grade staff be not hit hardest by this reform.

22. 2. Unfair in nature, lacking p r o p o rtio n al i t y and legally risky, the reform of Annex X must be immediately halted until due analysis can ensure socially fair, economically effective and productively useful modifications. Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

23. 3. That those responsible for the modifications to Annex X without even thinking of a 'social compensation plan', be considered accountable for the risks of massive legal action against the EC and EEAS for unilateral breach of contract

24. Proposed GIPs should focus on compensating staff not on cutting more : -Intended savings from new GIPs: marginal compared to consequences of motivation and commitment loss of staff. - Reduction of leave entitlements will bring no savings. On the contrary. The rationale for the leave cuts does not relate to any other organisation or MS. -The proposed GIPs for the new Annex X do not solve the incoherence of leave entitlements vis-à-vis posting hardship. They are all the more unfair for staff in hardship posts. Staff in Delhi, Cairo or Nairobi will benefit from the same leave as those in the EU. This is simply irrational. Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

25. GIPs counterproposals: A. For all Expatriates Officials, Temporary and Contract Agents Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

26. A1 To ensure a commensurate relationship between living conditions and leave entitlements: e.g. By allocating at least 2 leave days compensatory annual/home leave for every 5% in difficulty of living conditions coefficient (ICV); Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

27. A2 To ensure a commensurate relationship between travel time to the EU and leave entitlements: e.g. By providing compensatory annual/home leave proportional to real travelling time and time difference from the posting twice a year. – try getting from East Timor and back in two days!!! Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

28. A3 To ensure a commensurate relationship between hardship and Rest Leave entitlements: e.g. By increasing the allocation of rest-leave substantially for difficult postings (30% ICV & above) Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

29. A4 To respect the legitimate expectations of staff posted in Delegations with regards to financial assistance to travel e.g. By ensuring that the Annual leave travel allowance be no less than the equivalent of a "Premium Economy" category; Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

30. A5 To enable staff to better reconcile professional and family responsibilities whilst posted outside the EU: e.g. by allowing a greater scope of flexitime accumulation of days of recuperation across months. Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

31. A6 To keep off staff from paying for housing contracts they do not control e.g. by not transferring 10% of rent costs to staff and the management of lease contracts unless staff benefit from a yearly fixed lump- sum/subsidy as opposed to reimbursing monthly payments. Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

32. GIPs counterproposals: B. For Contract Agents 3a in Delegations Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

33. B1 To address the principle of "same job, same pay": e.g. By: 1. aligning basic salaries of CAs 3a to 3b; 2. allocating salary bonuses for CAs proportional to work acting as Officials; 3. To allow CAs 3a to become Heads of Section since they are anyways already doing this job. Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

34. B2 To address the principle of "proportionality": e.g. by establishing a faster reclassification system for CAs 3a in compensation for the anticipated disproportionate purchasing power losses. Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

35. B3 To address the principle of "equal opportunities" for CAs 3a vis-à-vis AST and TAs : e.g. By establishing a 'certification procedure' to qualify as Officials in addition to the proposed extremely limited access to Internal Competitions foreseen in the new Staff Regulations; Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

36. B4 To address the principle of "equal opportunities" for CAs 3a vis-à-vis Officials : e.g. 1. By extending the period of "Congé de Convenance Personnelle" (CCP) from one to five years; 2. By granting job titles commensurate to responsibilities e.g. adviser, senior… Part 4 CLP-HU’s proposals

37. CLP-HU at the service of staff President: Helen CONEFREY Bureau: Siggi KRAHL, Alessandro LIAMINE, Hang NGUYEN, Alessandro CAMPO, Maria MANON DE HERNANDEZ, Karin PEETERS, Luc RADELET, Dimitrije STANKOVIC Members: Omar ABU EID, Girish AHUJA, Jacques BARDOUL, Clement BOURSE, Jordi CARRASCO-MUNOZ PRATS, Eyal INBAR, Pablo ISLA VILLAR, Andrea JANOHA, Mercy KIMANI, Sunil KUMAR, Angel MORENO DE TEJADA, Georges MUGENZI GANYANA, Modupe OMOPINTEMI, Aminata ONGOIBA, Jaime ROYO OLID, Jose Alberto TORONJO BENITEZ, Stefano VARRIALE.