Merpel has been having a quiet May, but has been rudely awoken from her frolics in the amiable grass of Lincoln's Inn Fields (her preferred place for Spring gambolling) by disturbing news from the European Patent Office.
 |
| Improved social dialogue ... |
The IPKat initially
welcomed the
call by the Administrative Council of the EPO for the President to work towards recognition of the trade unions of the EPO and to work towards improved social dialogue. Then, an
initial meeting seemed to achieve little more than to agree another meeting, which was at least better than not to agree another meeting. But in the meantime, most of the reforms to which the EPO staff objected were
being pushed through, and it began to appear as though, even if union recognition was achieved, it would be too late to achieve any of the modifications that were needed to the reforms.
 |
"J'accuse!" Bad
news for EPO staff |
Through all of this, there have been many reports that staff representatives (people elected under EPO procedures to serve on the Central Staff Committee and attend the General Consultative Committee, which the is the body in which staff consultation takes place, in the absence of union recognition) have been investigated or disciplined in relation to their work as staff representatives. They have also been publicly castigated for their work (see
here and
here), notwithstanding that they are elected under EPO procedures (recently
reformed by the EPO administration to be by single non-transferable vote) and are performing their elected function.
 |
| Control all risks! |
Now, SUEPO, the Staff Union of the EPO, has
announced (see news item of 21 May) that it understands that
Control Risks (who describe themselves as "an independent, global risk consultancy specialising in helping organisations manage political, integrity and security risks in complex and hostile environments")
has been commissioned by the EPO to investigate staff members who are elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union. Merpel considers that this completely undermines any attempt at social dialogue, or moves towards union recognition. How are EPO employees to be expected to serve on the Central Staff Committee, or to represent the EPO unions, if at the same time they are to be harassed and investigated, apparently for performing this very service?
 |
| BB, or BB? |
By this action, the President of the EPO and his administration risk being seen as acting to destroy utterly the very social dialogue that they claim to be seeking. More seriously from the constitutional position of the EPO, they are contravening the explicit instructions of the Administrative Council, to whom the President is ultimately answerable, who have "call for a renewed social dialogue" and instructed the President to work towards formal recognition of the trade unions. Sabotaging these talks by simultaneously investigating staff members flies against both the spirit and the letter of these instructions. The talks are in danger of becoming a sham and a smokescreen, increasingly failing to hide that the President is determined that nothing will change.
As ever, Merpel welcomes comments, but begs to remind readers of the following:
Henceforth, in respect of all EPO-related blogposts, no comment will be posted if it is merely ascribed to "Anonymous". Any reader wishing to conceal his or her identity must adopt a pseudonym (which should not be obscene and should not be the name, or the mis-spelling of the name, of a real person). The pseudonym need not be an actual login name, as long as it is stated clearly at the beginning and/or end of the comment itself. This way, it will be easier for people who post later comments to identify and remember the earlier comment-poster and to recall the discussion string. Where, as has already happened on occasion, a string carries over from one blogpost to a later one on the same or a related subject, readers will be encouraged to use the same pseudonym for the sake of continuity.
