N 1435

27 October 2011

WERE BACK! Communication to our membership is essential including during the mediation

Our commitment during the mediation As part of the external mediation launched this year, the Staff Union committed itself to avoid communications which could be considered inflammatory, or which could have a negative impact on the process. We were and indeed we remain fully committed to engage with our management counterparts in good faith, and with a view to finding solutions to the problems which were clearly presented to the ILO Administration and the Governing Body in November 2010. It was clear that if we are to find sustainable solutions for the serious problems facing the staff, we would need to do so in an atmosphere of calm, where cooler heads could prevail. This exercise of restraint was announced by the Committee during the Annual General Meeting, First Session, as part of Priority 1 in the Unions Programme and Strategy, Establishing a Healthy Industrial Relations Framework within the ILO. While it was met with considerable scepticism by some members, the Meeting accepted this as a necessary part of carrying out effective negotiations and re-building confidence between the parties. An unfortunate end-result However, far from allowing for rapid, or even steady, progress in the four areas identified for the mediation (Precarious Work, Reclassification, Recruitment and Selection, and Collective Bargaining / Collective Dispute Resolution), we fear that our relative silence has not helped achieve the desired results, and may have actually had a negative impact. While some progress had been made between the beginning of the year and May, when the sides were regularly meeting in relation to the mediation process, since then, a series of troubling developments have been cause for concern. These have included: The publication of a new IGDS on External Collaboration contracts, setting the ILO back well before the adoption of Recommendation 198 on the Employment Relationship.

-2-

This was published absent any negotiation with the Union, and even without prior consultation.1 Efforts to resolve the issue continue, with no concrete results at present. In the middle of what was supposed to be a negotiation, but prior to any agreement being reached, the publication of managements proposals for reductions to travel standards2 (including an increase in the number of hours travelled before qualifying for business class, reductions in payment of DSA). This was prior to any consideration being given to the dialogue process, or the proposals which the Union might make. A growing use of retired officials, in complete contradiction with the applicable rules, to carry out core and continuing functions in the Office. Most of these individuals receive both salary and pension, without the Office making contributions to the pension fund (and saving a few bucks as compared with doing things correctly). Despite efforts by the Union to address this situation over the past year, management has made no effort to hear these legitimate concerns by the staff. At a time of increasing pressure on the staff, and when we need the support of an independent and confidential counselling resource more than ever, not to mention the fact that other UN organisations have recognised the importance of such a service by employing 2-3 full-time counsellors, management decided to cut funding to the Staff Welfare Office. Again this happened absent any discussion with the Union on the matter. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, management decided in the middle of mediation over recruitment and selection to launch the RAPS without reaching any agreement with the Union as regards the use of external consultants as assessors. This time, HRD has confirmed that indeed the consultants were already hired before any proposal was made to the Union; a complete violation of the principles of good faith. The illegality of this action has been clearly outlined by JUR, but in a victory of expedience over respect for the rule of law, management has decided to move forward irrespective of the serious consequences this will have, on the legitimacy of the RAPS outcomes, on the confidence of the staff, and on the industrial relations climate in the house.

It took considerable restraint for the Union to avoid broadcasting on each of these issues when they happened. Efforts to address many of these problems through dialogue, including through the mediation, have largely met with a refusal to take responsible action by the Administration, raising questions as to our counterparts commitment to exercise similar restraint in their behaviour. And in each case, the staff lose. The direct results are a growth in precarious work, fewer opportunities to be regularized or for career progression, and potentially significant reductions in travel standards absent any negotiation. While the Union has consistently held that finding solutions to questions related to the scope of the employment relationship should be subject to collective bargaining, in keeping with the Recommendation, and that even if this were not true, the Staff Regulations call for at least consultation (Article 0.2 (d) of the Staff Regulations holds that Persons engaged as consultants shall be subject to conditions of service to be determined by the Director-General, after consulting the Joint Negotiating Committee.), management does not agree. 2 http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_165238.pdf
1

-3-

Our commitment to the membership During the Annual General Meeting (Second Session) just last week, the Union announced a change in its tactics. We have agreed to continue with the mediation in the hope that it will lead to some positive change. However, where we have exercised extreme responsibility in not denouncing or reacting to problems (in an effort to avoid raising the temperature and spoiling the climate for mediation) we will now communicate in a much more regular fashion. Any perceived problems will be dealt with swiftly and strongly. We have also committed to provide updates on the mediation sessions in November and December, publishing the notes such as the one shared during the General Meeting, and providing our analysis and recommendation as to whether or not we continue, in relation to the perceived willingness of management to make real progress on those issues identified by the staff.

______________