Part II
(- sorry, this will be a bit longer, but a lot has accumulated recently…)

How does the EPO in 2018 fare with regard to the criterion “expert, well supported and motivated staff”? To what extent is it already reality, and to what “vision” in the sense of fancy?

In my personal view, it is difficult to give a satisfactory general answer to this question. The EPO employs almost 7000 staff from over 30 countries, among them more than 4300 examiners (in 2016). It is inevitable that not all of them are “expert, well supported and motivated” to the same degree. But let us look at the three categories in more detail:

1. Expert Staff

“Expert” staff probably mainly alludes to the technical and legal qualifications of EPO examiners and Board of Appeal (BoA) members. In this regard, my general impression is that the EPO staff leaves very little to be desired. Exceptions may confirm the rule, but on the whole, my experience is that EPO examiners and BoA members are adept to the technology at stake and perfectly capable of understanding also very complex inventions, which is commendable and not a given on a global scale. Legal knowledge and experience may be more variable between individual examiners, but fundamentally I would not complain about this. EPO examiners will probably think the same about the professional representatives with whom they are dealing on a day-to-day basis.

If there is any problem here at all, it is to maintain the status quo (aside from individual improvements). In my opinion, EPO staff is so “expert” because the EPO used to offer it a permanent position with high job security and a good salary, combined with a favourably low EPO tax rate, decent weekly hours and a generally pleasant international working climate. The combination of these factors enabled the EPO to recruit very good scientists and engineers and to train them on the job to become expert examiners. The EPO management would in my view be well advised to maintain these conditions.

I have heard rumours about the EPO intending to recruit new examiners on a temporary (5 year) basis only. Two commentators of my last contribution even alleged that an amendment is under discussion that would allow the President to dismiss any employee “should his/her services be not needed”. If true, that would indeed be outrageous.

Bearing the EPO’s vision about staff in mind, I do not think that such amendments would make any sense, since they would remove an absolutely decisive advantage of an EPO job versus a job in industry or private practice. I would also note that many EU countries impose quite strict restrictions on temporary employment contracts, and for good reasons. Thus, I really hope that the Administrative Council will not cave in to such self-destructive proposals.

Even under the existing rules, staff job security has unfortunately already been jeopardized by the EPO President who has fired no less than three members of the Staff Union of the EPO during his tenure (which will end on 30 June 2018). Two of them were dismissed even contrary to recommendations of the EPO’s own disciplinary committee, whose chairman is – you probably guessed it – also appointed by the EPO President and therefore unlikely to be overly staff-friendly. In the third case, the disciplinary committee apparently found the SUEPO chair Mr. Laurent Prunier guilty of a “campaign of harassment” against another staff representative “by exclusion, isolation and intimidation”, which allegedly resulted in the “forced resignation” of this staff representative. According to Intellectual Property Watch the president wrote: “The case of the forced resignation of this staff representative was well known and had further consequences; it was used as a threat by some staff representatives against other staff representatives in Munich, who would have exposed themselves to the action of the ‘snipers of The Hague’, if they refused to follow some instructions”.

Mr. Prunier countered that by saying “the file against me contains so many demonstrably fabricated accusations that I have little doubt I can defend myself – or, rather I would be able to if our internal system were not what it is currently, a kangaroo court.” According to Wikipedia, a “kangaroo court” is a judicial tribunal or assembly that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.

I do not know what happened and have no own judgment on the case itself (there is a lot in internet blogs and from SUEPO). However, I wonder how a SUEPO representative could have been able to “threaten” other staff representatives and to even “force” their resignation. Is it not much more plausible to assume that a staff member who feels threatened by one of his (SUEPO) colleagues would first contact his manager or even the President and that one of them would have immediately interfered and stopped this bullying, if any? I also wonder about the EPO President using the words ‘snipers of The Hague’ in regard to elected staff union representatives. Finally, I wonder what is so special or “evil” about elected SUEPO representatives (other than their elevated position in the Staff Union of EPO members) that no less than three of them apparently had to be sacked? The pattern as a whole has a very bad odour to it and the mere fact that no less than three staff representatives were fired during a relatively short time period suggests that an EPO job is not really safe unless you say and do what the President wants.

In this connection, the underlying problem seems to be that the EPO is not embedded in a proper court structure that guarantees independent decision-making and a proper judicial review. As the above cases have shown, the President (a) has a great influence on the composition of the EPO’s disciplinary board and (b) neither is nor even feels bound by its decisions. This obviously raises the question what this board is good for at all, if the President can always overrule it. In my humble opinion, a disciplinary board is (or at least should be) empowered to make decisions in disciplinary matters exactly because the President has delegated his power to the board to this extent; otherwise such a board makes little sense. In addition, there is unfortunately no separation of powers or system of checks and balances within the European Patent Organisation. Neither the decisions of the President nor of the Administrative Council (AC) are subject to an effective judicial control, which in my opinion is a fundamental flaw of the EPC under the aspect of the rule of law. (And, unfortunately, the UPC has the same construction.)

Employees and former employees of the EPO may apply to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization in the case of disputes with the European Patent Organisation, pursuant to Art. 13 EPC. This may seem to be a solution at first glance, but this Administrative Tribunal is (a) no fact finding court and (b) only admits an appeal if all internal means of redress have been exhausted. The former is completely unsatisfactory, because it is very often the proper establishment and assessment of the relevant facts that is decisive for a lawsuit. The latter is equally strange because it may result in a complete denial of an employee’s rights in the case when the employee seeks a certain measure from the EPO management and the EPO management simply does not react. Such an “implied denial” of an employee’s request seems to be “not a final decision in accordance with Article 109(5) of the Service Regulations”, and thus results in inadmissibility of the appeal according to the ILOAT in its decision 3968, ground 18, which was discussed in this blog earlier.

Prof. Broß, a retired judge of the German Federal Constitutional Court, has advanced an even more fundamental criticism to this dispute regulation mechanism. In his clear view, it is not legitimate for a state or association of states (such as the EPO) to outsource and “privatize” human rights. His reasoning has led him to the following damning verdict about Art. 13 EPC:

e. Was nun die Ausgestaltung der Dienstverhältnisse der Bediensteten der EPO einschließlich des nach den eingangs erwähnten Regelwerken unabdingbar zu gewährenden effektiven Rechtsschutzes betrifft, ist folgendes festzuhalten. Die Gewährleistung der Menschenrechte und die Sicherstellung eines effektiven Rechtsschutzes für die Bediensteten der Staatenverbindung ist eine originäre und substantielle Verpflichtung als Mitgliedstaat dieser neuen Staatenverbindung. Damit ist verbunden, dass die Mitgliedstaaten wegen der Formung einer Staatenverbindung mit eigener Rechtspersönlichkeit und gekrönt mit Immunität sich nicht aus ihrer jeweils einzeln bestehenden Verpflichtung zur Gewährleistung und Sicherstellung eines effektiven Menschenrechtsschutzes zu Gunsten der Bediensteten “stehlen” können. Die Übertragung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten zwischen der Staatenverbindung und ihren Bediensteten auf die ILO ist nicht in Einklang mit der Europäischen Grundrechtecharta, der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention und den nationalen Grundrechtskatalogen wie auch der Stellung jedes einzelnen Mitgliedstaates als “Herr des Vertrages”.

In English:

The following should be noted as regards the structuring of the employment relationships of the staff of the European Patent Organisation – including the legal protection that must necessarily be granted under the canons mentioned at the outset. The guarantee of human rights and the safeguarding of effective legal protection for the staff of the association of states is a primary and substantial obligation as a member state of this new association of states. Connected to this is the fact that, faced with the formation of an association of states with its own legal personality and crowned with immunity, the member states cannot “relinquish” their separate individual obligations to guarantee and safeguard effective protection of human rights for the benefit of the staff. The transfer of legal disputes between the association of states and its staff to the ILO is not consonant with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Human Rights Convention, and the national catalogues of fundamental rights as well as the status of each individual member state as “master of the contract”.

It remains to be seen whether this criticism will make its way to the Federal Constitutional Court in the four pending constitutional complaints against the EPO and the constitutional complaint against the UPC and whether it will have an impact on the court. In any case, it should not be lightly dismissed. Human rights are indeed the highest good that our constitutions, the EU Charter on Human Rights, and the European Convention of Human Rights are supposed to protect. It should indeed not be legitimate to “outsource” them and to create a space in the middle of Europe to which the independent courts of the member states have no access anymore. We need no second Guantanamo.

Will all of this have an impact on the “expertise” or “expertness” of EPO examiners? In the short term probably not too much, since most examiners were hired under more congenial conditions. However, I have repeatedly heard that several senior examiners and BoA members have recently left the EPO, or went into early retirement. The EPO management will have the appropriate data to confirm or disprove this. If so, the current situation at the EPO might even have short term effects on the expertise and experience of the EPO examiners, but in any case, I fear that the EPO has lost some of its attractiveness as an employer to young scientists and engineers. Job security might very well be a quite important factor if and when people consider a career at the patent office.

Contrast the situation at the EPO with the enormous level of protection that employees and particularly staff representatives enjoy in many European countries, particularly in Germany (where additionally patent examiners have “Beamtenstatus” and thus are essentially protected twice against being sacked), and it is easy to see that the EPO now has a significant comparative downside as an employer for new examiners. This worries me as a representative of parties before the EPO for the long-term future.

2. Well-supported staff

EPO staff may have the necessary technical equipment it needs for support, but the above raises doubts whether the EPO staff feels “well-supported” by management likewise. My own impression is that most (if not all) EPO examiners with whom I have spoken over the past years feel at least somewhat intimidated or even threatened by their management rather than “well supported”. I should of course clearly state that I am not in a position to conduct any representative poll, so I concede that I may be wrong on this. Happy examiners, if you do feel well-supported by your current management, please speak up and let the world know!

For the time being, however, I am afraid that the situation is indeed as difficult and depressing as I myself have observed it many times. Here is some more evidence: The Committee on Social Affairs of the Council of Europe has recently (24 January 2018) deliberated about jurisdictional immunity of international organisations and rights of their staff and made several suggestions on how to improve the situation and issued a Committee Opinion that can be found here.

I had to remind myself that the Council of Europe is no EU institution, even though all EU member states and several more are members thereof. It has 47 member states from Albania through to the United Kingdom and also includes Russia and Turkey, for example. The Council of Europe understands itself as the guardian of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The aforementioned Committee Opinion includes an explanatory memorandum wherein the following remarkable statement can be found:

It is no secret that the signatories of the original motion for a resolution had the situation at the European Patent Office (EPO) in mind when tabling this motion. The EPO – like other international organisations – is not exactly a paragon of transparency when it comes to its internal workings, but the situation has deteriorated so badly over the last few years that there has even been some media attention. From this media coverage it appears that the President of the EPO installed in 2010 has waged a campaign against staff who oppose his reform efforts (with staff representatives members of the trade union SUEPO being in the first line of fire): by 2016, three elected staff representatives had been dismissed, others had been demoted and/or had seen their salaries or pensions cut. Staff complain about a campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination, resulting in burn-out and other sickness, and even suicides: Over the past four years, five EPO staff members have committed suicide, two of them at their place of work.

I have already reported on the speech recently held by the AC’s Chairman Dr. Christoph Ernst at the MPI in Munich on this blog. I may add to my report that the issue of these extremely sad incidents was also brought up in the discussion following his speech. This was the only time when I observed Mr. Ernst to become somewhat unsettled or even angry. He expressed his distaste in any attempt to exploit (“instrumentalisieren”) these incidents to push for a political agenda. I agree with him on that. Nonetheless I think that ignoring such tragic events altogether or treating them as isolated and singular occurrences that surely have nothing to do with the EPO’s management policy towards staff is also not the way to appropriately deal with such a situation. When somebody commits suicide at his/her place of work, it is in my view right for everybody who knew or was responsible for this person to do some introspection and at least consider what he/she/all of us can possibly do to prevent such tragic incidents from re-occurring. I cannot imagine that the EPO management did not do this and will say no more about it.

3. Motivated staff

Finally, a word on motivation. To begin with, I would like to observe that I know many examiners who still like their job and do it very well. I can understand that. An EPO examiner’s work can be interesting, intellectually challenging and sometimes perhaps even entertaining, e.g. when there are oral proceedings, but then these can also be quite tedious at other times. And while I have heard that the financial conditions and career paths are no longer what they used to be, nobody has ever complained to me about his/her salary specifically.

So, is all well on this front? Not quite, unfortunately.

Sadly, I have also noted that the atmosphere at the EPO has changed over the last couple of years. Just a few examples: Every examiner who wanted to be a little bit more open to me cautioned me not to mention her/his name by any means, as he/she might be subjected to severe sanctions if it came out that he/she was a source of the information just relayed to me. I find this very strange, to say the least, as we are not talking about professional or personal secrets here, but about the way in which the EPO generally works. I think the public has a right to know this and should have an unfiltered and unfettered access to this reality. But contrast this with Article 20(2) of the current “Service Regulations” of the European Patent Office:

“A permanent employee shall not, whether alone or together with others, publish or cause to be published, without the permission of the President of the Office, any matter dealing with the work of the Organisation. Permission shall be refused only where the proposed publication is liable to prejudice the interests of the Organisation.”

There is no doubt, according to my observations, that many examiners currently feel oppressed, intimidated and under constant supervision (“big brother”). Not every examiner sympathizes with every action by SUEPO, but nobody has ever expressed to me approval or even a shred of understanding about what happened to SUEPO’s representatives. There are examiners who really feel oppressed and try to stand up to the oppression, there are examiners who have escaped into a state of inner emigration (“nothing can be changed, this management can do what it wants, so I just keep quiet and do my job”); and there are also examiners who have expressed to me an understanding for that the current management has a stronger focus on performance than earlier ones. And there are examiners who are a little bit of everything. It is obviously a question of degree.

I for myself think that the EPO has an important role to play as a public service provider and that examiners should – and overwhelmingly do – take this role seriously. I have no problem with a management that challenges those (few) employees who do not respect their duties to their employer and to the public and just try to cash in a decent salary for doing nothing or just the bare minimum. On the other hand, I think that a decent management should also understand and respect that people are different, and that some of them may perform less than others due to e.g. sickness or age. And I see no point in substantially increasing so-called “production targets” per capita every year. Charles Chaplin has sufficiently demonstrated in Modern Times (available for free on youtube, around minutes 14-15) that there are obvious (human) limits to productivity per person and that turning the conveyor belt faster and faster may result in more casualties, but not necessarily in better products. But this will be for another post.

Musing about motivation at the Board of Appeal level, I cannot refrain from thinking about the story of Mr. Mennessier. I remember Mr. Mennessier as an outstandingly correct, thorough and sincere technical Board of Appeal member who was respected by everybody. Mr. Mennessier was also motivated, even so much that he asked for his service at the EPO to be prolonged beyond the regular age of 65. He filed his request in good time in September 2013, more than a year before his regular retirement age and successfully underwent the requisite medical examination. The EPO’s Selection Committee then interviewed him on 20 January 2014 and proposed to the President of the Office that his request should be granted, as it had been good practice before. However, Mr. Mennessier did not hear back from the President for many, many months, nor from the Administrative Council who would have to make this decision on proposal by the President. Only in October 2014, about one month before his regular retirement, the President informed him that “in the interest of the service” he had decided not to propose a prolongation of his service to the Administrative Council. Why? Was there not a serious backlog of cases already in 2014? (Spoiler: yes, there was and every hand would have been needed!) Here are the reasons: The first was that in the EPO President’s view, “it was inappropriate to propose a prolongation until the full consequences of decision R 19/12 on the functioning, structure and staffing of DG3 became clear”.

WHAT??? Dear readers, when I read this story for the first time, my jaw dropped. A highly experienced, motivated and desperately needed TBA member was refused to continue working for another two or three years because three of his colleagues had issued a decision (R 19/12) which questioned the independence of the Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in view of his involvement in the administration of the office as Vice President of DG3, but which had absolutely nothing to do with the staffing of the Boards of Appeal. Not only is this reasoning completely arbitrary and capricious, at least in my opinion; it also ironically confirms in a very sad way how little independence the Board of Appeal members actually have. In which world do we live where Board of Appeal members run the risk of suffering personal harm if they (or even their colleagues) issue a decision that the President does not like? Montesquieu, have you lived in vain?

The second reason is equally strange and tenuous: The President argued that “discussions on changes to the organisation of DG3 were under way in anticipation of the setting up of the Unified Patent Court”. Note, all of this happened in 2014. And what exactly should be the impact of the UPC on the Boards of Appeal? Does the President seriously believe there will be less oppositions and appeals if we have a Unified Patent Court, and if so on which basis?

The Administrative Tribunal of the ILO where Mr. Mennessier complained was not very complimentary to the EPO President about this. It first reminded itself about the applicable standard as follows:

A decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises wide discretion. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.

But then it held that the reasoning by the EPO President was so weak and arbitrary that it violated even this generous standard:

Neither of the grounds underlying the decisions of the President of the Office can be accepted as a legitimate justification for the rejection of the complainant’s request for his service to be prolonged. This rejection was therefore tainted by an obvious error of judgement.

The Tribunal notes that this flaw is particularly unacceptable given that the Selection Committee had issued a proposal favourable to the complainant’s request. That proposal was based on sound reasoning and emphasised, in addition to the complainant’s profound competence, the service’s interest in retaining him in view of the particular need of the boards of appeal for expertise in his specific field. Considering that proposal, the President ought to have at least provided adequate justification for his own position.

As this blog is already long enough, I recommend studying the decision in full. In the end, the EPO was ordered to pay to Mr. Mennessier his full remuneration for two further years (less his pension), various further compensations and moral damages of 5000 EUR. I find this extremely annoying, because the EPO management could have retained a first-class and motivated Board of Appeal member in the biotech field for two more years. The average duration of contentious biotech appeals has meanwhile reached at least four years.

In addition, I wonder what effect the EPO President’s handling of Mr. Mennessier may have had on the motivation of other Board of Appeal members and whether the President cared (or cares) about this at all. Furthermore, I wonder how much the Administrative Council knew and approved about this at that time. If the AC was not informed about the President’s decision in 2014 and if I were an AC member today, I would get pretty upset. In my opinion, this decision by the EPO President has inflicted damage to the European Patent Office and its stakeholders, and for no good reason.

In summary, I am not sure whether the EPO’s “vision” of a motivated staff matches with current reality. While many examiners and Board of Appeal members genuinely like their work, I have yet to find one who tells me that (s)he feels motivated by the current management, whilst many tell me the opposite. It seems to me that the current management focusses far too much on delusional and senseless objectives such as “raising production targets” every year and on “challenging staff”, rather than positively motivating it to work together towards a common goal, i.e. the public weal.


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF


  1. Having been a freelancing patent attorney that had a daily struggle to make ends meet and without ANY security, I feel that these are indeed luxury problems. I know that a lot of my colleagues are in the same position as I was and considering the abuse they have to live with to pay rent and get food on the table (I am not kidding you) despite PhD, EQE and national German qualification, I really cannot motivate myself to stand up and fight for EPO staff. Sorry, but that is how I see it.

    1. Peter,

      Are you saying that you simply cannot feel sorry anyone who you believe is fortunate enough to have a greater level of (job / financial) security than you? If so, it seems to me that you have a very large chip on your shoulder.

      May I remind you that you chose your career path. No doubt (given the current recruitment drive) it would also be possible for you to jump ship and take a position as an examiner at the EPO. So how about it? Or are you not quite so eager to trade your human rights for the “security” offered by a job at the EPO?

    2. Maybe you should not rejoice too early, Mr. Parker.

      The EPO is indeed considering new employment conditions. I have seen the papers that will be presented to the council.

      The bigger picture is that the EPO is also trying to recruit new staff like crazy. Official figures are in the budget (hint, hint…) and foresee 200-300 new recruits each year. Simple arithmetics dictate that a similar number of people will have to leave the EPO each year in the near future.

      After a few years in patents, it is difficult to resume a career anywhere else. Now comes the catch: there are only two options in patents, work for the EPO or become a patent attorney. Ergo: in the near future, you will have to welcome about 200-300 new competitors each year. Maybe a bit less, some will retire or chose an other job, but a few hundreds within a few years is likely. That competition will drive your prices down and make paying your rent more difficult.

      I believe that this is part of a strategy to increase the number of patents, BTW. More attorneys will mean that the EPO will get a workforce motivated to find more applicants. For the EPO, it is a win-win situation. For you as an attorney less so, but the EPO has no incentive to be loyal to you.

  2. Dear Mr Bausch

    For your readers – with the view to restore Mr Prunier’s damaged reputation since you mention him (after the shameful character assassination he suffered from Mr Battistelli) here is what IAM IP Blog published back then :

    After this post Battistelli will not comment any more. Guess why

    My thoughts are going to Laurent and also Els, Ion and Malika who all were abusively sanctioned for having had the guts to defend the rights of EPO staff harshly abused by team Battistelli and dared to denounce what needed to be denounced.

  3. The decision of Mr. Menessier is a good example why the EPO president has absolutely no incentive to be reasonable. In most of the decisions, he simply wins outright. If the decision is not in the favour of the EPO, as is the case with MR. Menessier, the president gets away with a modest fine which the EPO can pay out of pocket change (considering their budget surplus).

    This problem has existed for years, but Battistelli is the first to use it systematically as a feature.

  4. Thanks again to Thorsten for a well-balanced presentation of the staff situation at the EPO.

    I will not come back to the stupid ideas re staff contracts. It just shows that the minds of those devising such measures are anything but sick, and do not have the faintest idea of what the work of an examiner entails.

    With renewable five years contracts you can be sure that any objection will be nipped in the bud. This was clearly to be seen when the Principal directors where put on 5 years contracts. If directors will also become 5 years contracts, or the “team leaders”, what do you expect?

    The problems with joint bodies and the referral to the ILO-AT are inherent to the staff regulations of the EPO which has been devised in the seventies. The question of human rights did not received the same attention then as now. In order to build up the staff regulations for the future staff of the EPO, reference was made to the “coordinated organisations” like ESA, OECD, NATO and the like. Even the salaries were aligned to those of the coordinated organisations. Progressively the salaries adjustment diverged from those of the coordinated organisations. There is still a link with those as far as pensions are concerned, since the EPO has sublet the pension administration to the SIRP, a special unit of the OECD set up for this purpose.

    Up to the arrival of the Napoleon of the 10th floor, the staff regulations were applied in a more or less reasonable way, and for instance SUEPO was recognised as the prime staff representation; the joint bodies were mainly filled with member of SUEPO and worked more or less correctly. All the predecessors have used their exorbitant power rather cautiously.

    It should not come as a surprise but quite a few later members of the lower (directors) and upper (principal directors) management where people having exercised some responsibility in the SUEPO before being promoted. One even changed from being violently against the then exercising management to be a stiff antagonist of staff once he became manager.

    This should not be taken as saying that those members which have been sacked are no good! They have been sacked or demoted as they opposed the ideas sprouting out of the 10th floor. On the other hand a systematic opposition does not bring matters forward either.

    There have been decisions of former presidents not to follow the conclusions of joint bodies, but they all took care that it would not look arbitrary. Nowadays, for instance the conclusions of the disciplinary committee are systematically set aside, and the proposed sanctions aggravated, sometimes quite drastically. This allows the tenant of the 10th floor to later remove part of his extra sanctions, so that it looks to the not too attentive observer that after all it might not be as bad as some people claim.

    In order to bring calm into the EPO a first action should be to convene the conference of ministers as set in Art 4a introduced by EPC 2000. That this could only be done with the new president goes without saying. Here again the AC should show more guts. As the conference is to be called at least every five years why was such a conference not scheduled after 2010? EPC 2000 came into force in December 2007 and at the latest in December 2012 and 2017 such a conference should have been called. The reply as to why this has not been the case seems obvious.

    All the mechanisms involving joint bodies should be reviewed. The revision should be such that any unanimous decisions taken by a joint body should be accepted by the president whether he likes it or not. For any other decision, the president should not be empowered to take a decision which will be against the will of the joint body. So even if the joint body would take a decision adverse to the staff member, the president should not be authorised to aggravate it. Retrograding a staff member should not end up with the staff member being fired, just because the president has a personal gripe.

    It should also be brought to an end that a joint body is composed by members of the higher management team of the office. They cannot take a view contrary to what they decided in the management committee in a joint body. This farce should come to an end.

    The ILO-AT has shown that it resumes its role in assessing whether the applicable rules have been formally followed or not. Only in exceptional cases when the rules have not been applied in the spirit in which they have been conceived, the ILO-AT will say something. The ILO-AT is not an appropriate forum for deciding disputes between staff and the organisation they depend from.

    Why should the role of protecting staff in last resort be carried out by a UN agency?

    In general, staff should not be considered as a nuisance or a bunch of lazy people which have to be driven with a whip. You get good performance out of people if you respect them and if you give them objectives which might be challenging but not impossible to reach. When you meet examiners who have not yet fled or cannot flee yet as they are still too young to come near retirement, and they tell you that they are not any longer happy at work, it makes you sad. The brain drain of experienced examiners has been quite drastic. I am not sure that in the long run, it will be to the advantage of the EPO and its users. I rather think the contrary.

    What you need are leaders and not administrators at the head of such an office as the EPO. The last tenant of the 10th floor has been a very good example of what can be destroyed by an administrator! And this is sad as well.

    I have stopped commenting on Peter Parker’s positions. They are sometimes so crude and thoughtless that they do not warrant much attention. They can however be used by the present management of the office to show for instance to the AC that people outside the EPO think that EPO staff are privileged one way or another so that they deserve what they get. Has he ever thought of this? As this is what most members of the AC coming from countries were the salaries are rather on the lower side think as well, the effect of his position is actually deleterious.

    Techrigts: FINGERS OFF! You are intelligent enough to know what it means: directly and indirectly, even by a mere link (as recently done).

  5. Standing ovation.

    Thank you Mr Bausch. It feels good when you are appreciated. I had forgotten that feeling.

  6. To give an example of the “support” the EPO gives its examiners:
    I am on the waiting list for the course “Chairing in Examination” since at least four years.
    Last year, no such course was given at the EPO, to increase the productive working days.

    Well, coming up are Oral Proceedings in Examination…. Which until recently would have had me required to have followed the second course, usually gven about two years after the first course.

    Current training courses consist only of e-learning modules, to fulfil the requirement of the ISO 9001 feedback loop requirement.
    But their content is so shallow, that those who would need the teached content cannot have been examiners at the EPO since more than 4 weeks. It is simply such basic knowlegde… Their only advantage is the list of relevant guidelines passages attached as links.
    They do not address the issues of the “recorded deficiencies” at all. Besides the last one, which became an issue after a few directors instructed their examiners to not adapt the description for efficiency reasons….

    Yes, I feel very well supported by the current management. /sarcasm.

  7. “Why should the role of protecting staff in last resort be carried out by a UN agency? ”

    Because it’s like a warzone in there ?

  8. The reduction in training time has become a usual fashion since the full deployment of BEST around 2005, as BEST was allegedly increasing productivity/production by 30%, the training time for search and examination was reduced by 50%.

    15% time gain for search and 15% time gain for examination makes 30% time gain in total! Yes this is the level at which such a decision was taken. The real gain in production given by BEST was much lower, but in order for the pill to pass the AC, the figure had to be enlightened. But still the training time was reduced by 50%.

    It is not a joke. And this was long before the Office had to endure the present tenant of the 10th floor! He simply aggravated the situation, but was helped in this endeavour by the former VP1 Minnoye.

    New examiners receive an initial training as how to churn out as many communications as possible in the first year. When the replies arrive, training has already been reduced drastically, and they are left on their own…

    Training time is time in which neither the trainee nor the trainer produce. Training people is considered as an extra task not belonging to the core tasks. Core tasks have absolute priority. Language training might be given, but outside the working time, whether such training is considered necessary or not.

    Training, especially when it comes for highly educated people like examiners, needs to be carefully conceived. While in the past it was within DG1/DG2 i.e. in direct contact with the people at the “coal front”, it is nowadays under HR, with the famous E.B! It is thus not at all surprising that training has developed in the way shown above.

    Furthermore, in order to increase the output, not all examiners will deal with oppositions. On the face of it, it might look positive and more efficient. But not only does it create two classes of examiners, whereby those not dealing with oppositions will not have a chance to go to DG3 should they wish to do so, but it takes away from the “basic” examiner that what he is dealing with is not a mere piece of paper for which he gets points, but represents an asset which has either to be defended or pushed out of the way.

    It is by dealing with oppositions that examiners realise that their work is not just playing with words (original Minnoye), but represents an economic value. To me, dealing with oppositions is part of the necessary general culture needed by an examiner in order to fully comprehend his job, and not just an adjustable variable useful in getting more production out.

    That some directors instruct their people not to adapt the description is not a surprise. Just a waste of time. That afterwards in litigation before a national court, the proprietor can then try to pull wool over the eyes of a judge is a nice side effect. But one day those people will also sit on the other side.

    Some directors go even as far as to say that it is not even necessary to read the description, just look at the claims and at the drawings if any. Even a long time ago, oral instructions were given that if the first examiner decides to grant, the two other members of the division had to shut up.

    And with all those measures examiners are meant to be respected and feel happy at work. It makes me want to puke.

  9. Introducing the provision to “terminate the service of an employee if the exigencies of the service require abolition of their post or a reduction in staff” looks like a classic (“dead cat”) strategy from the EPO management.

    Getting feedback that nobody likes the proposal to change to 5 year contracts? Starting to worry that the proposal might not be passed? No problem, we have the answer for you: just introduce a proposal that is far more outrageous an objectionable and then everyone will expend their energy and time fighting that instead.

    So here’s my prediction: unless the AC has become completely supine, the “dead cat” proposal will draw objections, at which point the EPO management (with a theatrical show of exasperation and reluctance) will agree to withdraw it, but only if the AC agrees to rubber-stamp all of the other proposals (including the expansion of 5-year contracts).

    It will be interesting to see how accurate this prediction turns out to be.

Comments are closed.