Reclassification exercise 2014: all bets are off … for FGI and FGII!

The lists of proposed reclassifications made by the DGs were released last week and the period for the introduction of appeals for colleagues that have not been proposed has just been closed. R&D would like to bring to your attention the problems of this new (since last year) reclassification system.

 

Let’s start with a brief look back: DGs have met with the members appointed by the Central Staff Committee before the publication of these lists. These meetings generally took place in an atmosphere of open and constructive dialogue. During these discussions a point often arose: “Why did my DG receive such a small quota?” To this question, only DG HR can (?) reply:  the available budget and the formulas used to allocate quotas in the DGs are kept secret and R&D does not even have access to them.

 

However, R&D can share with our colleagues and with the HR units of the DGs its analysis of the first phase of this reclassification exercise.

 

What is the evolution of the reclassification quotas at the Commission level?

 

The table below summarizes the reclassification quotas distributed to Directorates-General in the first phase of the exercise:

 

 

2013 exercise

2014 exercise

evolution (%)

GFI

108

79

-27%

GFII

129

94

-27%

GFIII

45

54

+20%

GFIV

126

208

+65%

 There are two trends: a significant reduction in quotas for FGI and FGII (representing 90 % of the contractual agents in Brussels involved in   the reclassification) and, to the contrary, an increase in quotas for FGIII and FGIV. It is clear however that the calculation of these quotas   must take into account the developments in the number of colleagues in each function group and their permanence in the grade.

This leads to the following question:

 

 

Have the quotas been reduced (for FGI and FGII) to avoid a frantic acceleration of contractual agents careers?

 

We can answer this question by analysing the average permanence of the reclassified staff in previous years:

 

2012

2013

2014

GFI1

3,8

4,1

4,4

GFI2

5,7

6,2

GFII4

3,8

4,2

4,4

GFII5

5,0

5,5

5,8

GFII6

5,7

6,8

GFIII8

3,9

3,9

4,4

GFIII9

4,7

4,3

5,0

GFIII10

5,4

5,5

5,2

GFIII11

5,8

GFIV13

3,6

3,7

4,0

GFIV14

3,7

3,9

4,0

GFIV15

3,8

4,2

4,6

GFIV16

5,6

6,5

5,4

GFIV17

5,8

 
Average permanence of reclassified contractual agents  (in years)

 

As expected and denounced by R&Dduring the implementation phase of this system, the average permanence increases considerably for the starting grades (FGI1, FGII4, FGIII8 and FGIV13/14) and exceeds the range of the average provided by DG HR (4 years)! Also the number of non-proposed colleagues (and thus out of these statistics), although above this average, explodes: 25 in 2012, 75 in 2013, more than 100 in 2014!

 

What does this mean? On one side, the overall amount of quotas calculated by DG HR can no longer meet the average length of reclassification that DG HR committed itself to during the negotiation of this new reclassification system. On the other hand, the distribution of quotas by function group may lead to an adverse effect of comparison between contractual agents of different grades, so at the expense of lower-grade colleagues beginning their careers. What will DG HR reply to this? No doubt, it is normal that a head of section in FGI (with more than 5 persons under his/her responsibility) has to wait eight years to hit the jackpot (a € 96 salary increase …) with his/her reclassification in FGI3!

 

Is it too late?

 

One might think that the die is cast once quotas are communicated to DGs, and the latter have made the comparison of merits. This is not the case! R&D found that the quotas allocated to OIL have increased by over 50 %, and this happened just before the publication of the reclassification lists! As DG HR has just recognized in a note, this has been possible as a result of a new in-depth analysis (sic) that was requested by the OSPs in the context of the strike warning launched by contractual agent colleagues in Luxembourg, which R&D supports with conviction.

 

R&D requires that all DGs have equal treatment and that such an in-depth analysis is made as soon as possible in each one with the aim of making any necessary adjustments before the end of this year!

 

R&D will inform you of the developments in this matter, a sensitive issue for thousands of colleagues, during the following phases of this reclassification exercise.

Comments are closed.