|
2004 PROMOTION EXERCISE
The 2004 promotion exercise will be the second organised in accordance
with the procedures agreed by the Commission in 2002 and applied for the
first time in 2003. This Administrative Notice recaps the key principles
of these new procedures and sets out the main changes or clarifications
introduced by the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations adopted on 24 March 2004
(http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/index_en.html#2).
It should first be noted that, although the 2004 promotion exercise
concludes after 1 May 2004, it will be carried out in line with the
previous system of categories and career brackets (A, B, C, D), as the
promotions themselves will take effect before the entry into force of the
new Staff Regulations. They will, therefore, be based on the former
grades.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROMOTION SYSTEM IN FORCE SINCE 2003
The new promotion system was applied for the first time in 2003. The
entire promotion exercise is now managed via the SYSPER 2 “promotion”
module. Officials have individual access to their promotion files by means
of a personal secret password. Promotion files contain information on the
allocation of priority points received under the exercise and on the
individual’s situation as regards accumulated priority points and merit
points.
1.1. Key principles of the promotion system in force since 2003
The system applies to all officials, except those of grades A1 to A4
inclusive, LA4, B1, C1 and D1.
Officials accumulate merit points and priority points over successive
promotion exercises. The aggregate number of these points produces an
accumulated stock of points.
In each promotion exercise, the following individuals are promoted:
all officials with a number of accumulated points above the promotion
threshold1;
officials with a number of accumulated points equal to the promotion
threshold, provided there are sufficient budget resources available. To
this end, provision has been made for a mechanism to choose between
officials having the same ranking (“ex-aequo” officials – those officials
with a points score equal to the promotion threshold) on a proposal from
the promotion committees.
The principles governing the new promotion system are set out in detail in
Administrative Notice No 34-2003 of 2 May
2003
1.2. How are merit points and priority points accumulated?
Each year, officials are allocated merit points and, in certain cases,
priority points.
Merit points are the result of the mark out of 20 given in the annual
career development review (CDR). Officials given a mark of 12 in their CDR
for 2003 will be awarded 12 merit points for the 2004 promotion exercise.
However, there are a number of exceptions to this general rule, for
instance if the official in question has had a number of appraisals each
covering part of the previous year, or has taken leave on personal grounds
(see point 2.1 below).
officials who have demonstrated exceptional merit may be allocated 6 to
10 priority points,
other officials may be awarded a maximum of 4 points;
priority points allocated by the promotion committees: promotion
committees may propose the allocation of priority points to officials who
have undertaken tasks in the interest of the institution in addition to
their normal duties. The list of tasks concerned is set out in Annex I to
the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations (http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/index_en.html#2)
adopted by the Commission on 24 March 2004. A maximum of 2 such points may
be awarded to each official.
transitional priority points: in 2003, a number of transitional points
were awarded to officials to offset any disadvantages resulting from the
move from the old to the new promotion system. Transitional priority
points will again be awarded in 2004 in line with the new provisions laid
down to this end (see point 2.5 below);
transitional priority points awarded by the promotion committees: in
2003, the promotion committees had the option of proposing the allocation
of up to 2 priority points to offset any transitional problems. This
option is also available in 2004: promotion committees may now grant up to
a maximum of 3 points per official (see point 2.5 below);
priority points following an appeal: the promotion committees may
propose the allocation of priority points to officials who have contested
the number of priority points awarded by the directorate-general and have
appealed to the committee. The committee must judge the appeal to be
justified and must substantiate its proposal.
Promotion thresholds are not fixed in advance but established at the end
of the annual promotion exercise, for each grade, by the promotion
committees and the appointing authority. Thresholds depend on the budget
resources available and the points allocated by the directorates-general.
Officials are classified on the basis of the number of points accumulated:
top of the list is the official with the greatest number of points. If the
available budget resources are sufficient to promote 100 officials from
grade X to grade Y, the 100 officials with most accumulated points are
promoted. The promotion threshold is fixed at the number of points
accumulated by the official ranked 100 on this list.
In view of this mechanism, it is impossible to determine the definitive
promotion threshold for a given grade at the start of the exercise.
However, DG ADMIN estimates an indicative threshold at the start of the
promotion exercise. The indicative promotion thresholds for 2004 are
annexed to this Administrative Notice. If necessary, they will be
recalculated at the end of the CDR round.
For the 2003 promotion exercise, DG ADMIN drew the attention of staff to
the difference between the thresholds established at the beginning of the
exercise and the definitive thresholds:
http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2003/ia03069_fr.html
http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2003/ia03071_fr.html
Officials with a total number of points above the promotion threshold are
promoted, provided they meet the criteria applicable under the Staff
Regulations (minimum seniority in the grade and in service). However,
there is one key exception to this rule: officials who scored less than 10
in their most recent career development review cannot be promoted, even if
they have accumulated a total number of points above the promotion
threshold.
Officials who have accumulated a number of points which coincides exactly
with the promotion threshold may possibly be promoted. If budget resources
do not permit the promotion of all the officials who have reached the
definitive promotion threshold ( “ex aequo” officials), the promotion
committee proposes, from among these officials, those who may be promoted
on the basis of subsidiary criteria as specified in point 2.7 below.
The general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations (staff appraisal) provide for appeals procedures for officials
who contest the content of their CDR, in particular the merit mark
obtained. A Joint Evaluation Committee has been established for that
purpose in each directorate-general.
http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/index_en.html#5
During the actual promotion procedure, officials who contest the number of
priority points awarded by the directorate-general may appeal to the
relevant promotion committee, in line with the following procedures:
Once priority points have been awarded by the directors-general, DG
ADMIN informs staff of the merit lists which show, grade by grade and in
order of points, the names of officials whose total points reach a figure
not more than five points below the indicative promotion threshold and the
names of those who have reached or exceed this threshold. DG ADMIN then
invites all officials to consult their promotion file.
Officials have five working days from the publication of this merit list
to appeal to the relevant promotion committee.
The promotion committees4, which number five in all, are responsible
for:
making proposals on the allocation of points (see point 1.2 below), examining any individual appeals lodged by officials, selecting possible promotees from among ex-aequo officials (see point
1.4).
At the end of the promotion procedure, moreover, officials may lodge a
complaint with the appointing authority under Article 90(2) of the Staff
Regulations to challenge:
the fact that they have not been promoted;
the calculation of merit points on the basis of the marks in the CDR
concerned (any challenge involving the merit marks themselves is carried
out the framework of the appraisal exercise as indicated above);
the total number of priority points obtained during the promotion
exercise, regardless of the type of points concerned.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE 2004 AND 2003 PROMOTION EXERCISES
The 2003 promotion exercise, the first in which the new promotion system
was applied, progressed in a satisfactory manner overall. Nevertheless,
the Commission, in agreement with staff representatives, agreed a number
of improvements to the system. It therefore adopted, on 24 March 2004, the
new general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations which confirm the principles underlying the promotion system
but make a number of amendments or clarifications, the main elements of
which are indicated below. The full text of the general implementing
provisions is available at:
http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/index_en.html#2
2.1. Calculation of merit points
As in 2003, the merit mark given in the most recent annual career
development review will be exactly equal to the merit points awarded to
the official, except in some specific cases, mainly where an official has
had more than one review during the reference period, has changed category
or has not been in service for the entire reference period. The general
rule has been retained, i.e. merit points are calculated on a pro rata
basis for the period worked. However, in certain cases calculation of the
pro rata has been amended:
|
Example:
The method used in 2003 involved a simple pro rata calculation, taking
into account the a number of days of actual service in the reference
period. Hence an official in grade B/4 since 1 January 1999, who took
leave on personal grounds for 6 months and obtained a merit mark of 14 in
2003, was awarded merit points equal to 14 multiplied by 6/12, or 7
points.
With the new, amended method, the same official would obtain 11.5 merit
points. |
Probationary reports for probationary officials whose probationary
period ended after 31 January no longer contain merit marks. Under the new
general implementing provisions, upon establishment, probationary
officials are automatically awarded 9 merit points if they are in category
A, B or LA and 6 merit points if they are in category C or D.
Specific provisions for officials and temporary staff (Article 2(d))
paid from research appropriations in the general budget, were also adopted
on first reading by the Commission on 20 April 2004. They lay down the
conditions under which temporary staff paid from the research
appropriations (Article 2(d)) appointed to a permanent post under the
research part of the general budget, following an open competition, may
keep the merit points and priority points acquired in the grade prior to
their appointment as a probationary official. They are currently the
subject of consultations in the Staff Regulations Committee and the
Central Staff Committee.
2.2. Quota of priority points
Each directorate-general or department has, for a given grade,
a quota
of priority points equal to 2.5 times the number of officials in that
grade. In 2003, only one condition had to be met to be eligible for this
quota: the career development review (CDR) had to have been completed. For
the 2004 promotion exercise two further conditions have been added:
officials must have not only a completed CDR, but also validated
objectives and a training map covering at least the year 2004. If one of
these three conditions has not been met for a particular official, the
quota of priority points is reduced by 2.5.
The quota of priority points allocated to a directorate-general for a
given grade is also reduced if, for the grade in question, the average
merit marks exceed the expected average by more than one point. However,
directorates-general may apply for exemptions. In 2003 applications for
exemptions were examined by the promotion committees, but from 2004 they
will be examined by a single joint working party. This working party will
be chaired by the Director-General of DG ADMIN and will comprise four
members representing the administration and four members designated by the
Staff Committee, representing the staff.
The average number of merit points expected for each grade, as referred to
in Article 8 of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the
Staff Regulations, remains 14 for the 2004 staff appraisal and promotion
exercise.
2.3. Method of allocating priority points by the Directors-General
A number of new provisions have been introduced to
improve transparency
in the allocation of priority points by the directorates-general. Staff in
the directorate-general concerned will be informed of the criteria laid
down for allocating these points. These criteria will be communicated to
DG ADMIN, which will inform the Staff Committee. Finally, staff will also
be informed of the proposals on the allocation of priority points by the
directors-general.
The general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations adopted on 26 April 2002 defined two categories of officials
who could be allocated priority points: firstly, officials having
demonstrated exceptional merit, who could be allocated 6 to 10 priority
points; and secondly, officials regarded as being deserving of promotion,
who were eligible for 1 to 4 points. 50% of the quota of priority points
available to a directorate-general, for each grade, had to be allocated to
the first category and 50% to the second category. No points could be
transferred between the two categories. The new implementing provisions
ease this condition: if 50% of the quota of priority points cannot be
allocated to the first category, the balance may be used for the second.
Moreover, where the total number of priority points available to a
directorate-general for a given grade is 20 or less, the
directorate-general is not obliged to comply with the scale for the
distribution of priority points between the two categories of officials as
referred to in the above paragraph. In 2003, the possibility of derogating
from this scale was limited to grades with fewer than four officials in a
directorate-general.
2.4. Priority points in recognition of work undertaken in the interest of
the institution
In the course of the 2003 promotion exercise it was found difficult to
draw a line between work as a presentation speaker or trainer and the
normal duties of an official. Moreover, these two activities may take very
varied forms which are not always easy to quantify. The list of activities
justifying the award of priority points in the interest of the
institutions and the tariff for these points have therefore been amended
as follows:
Chairman/member of a competition selection board or joint committee for
the selection of temporary staff: 2 points
Assessor to a selection board, marker of competition papers: 1 point
Chairman/member of a joint committee: 2 points.
In order to qualify for these points, the above tasks must not form part
of the official’s usual activities as stated inter alia in his/her job
description.
It is up to the official being appraised, the reporting officer and the
countersigning officer to guarantee that the conditions governing the
award of these points have been met. A pull-down menu in the career
development review has been provided to this end. It should be noted that
the list of activities shown in this menu is broader than that finally
adopted by the Commission; nevertheless, only the activities shown above
may result in priority points being awarded for activities in the interest
of the institution.
2.5. Transitional provisions for the 2004 promotion exercise
|
(2)
(1) |
11 or less |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 or more |
|
[0.5 ; 1.5[
|
0 |
0 |
0.5 |
1 |
1.5 |
2 |
|
[1.5 ; 2.5[
|
0 |
1 |
1.5 |
2 |
2.5 |
3 |
|
[2.5 ; 3.5 [
|
0 |
2 |
2.5 |
3 |
3.5 |
4 |
|
[3.5 ; 4.5 [
|
0 |
3 |
3.5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
4.5 or more
|
0 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
under 0.5
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Legend
(1) = gap between the seniority in the grade on 1 January 2004 and the
average seniority of promoted officials in 2003.
(2) = mark obtained for the appraisal exercise which ended on 31 December
2002.
The promotion committees may propose the allocation of a maximum of 3
transitional priority points per official.
Finally, to ensure that the 2004 promotion exercise can take place on
the basis of the current career structure, only officials who, on 30 April
2004, had achieved the minimum seniority in the grade required under
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations are eligible for promotion. Under that
Article, this minimum period is, “for officials appointed to the starting
grade in their service or category, […] six months from the date of their
establishment; for other officials […] two years. Moreover, officials who
attain the required seniority in the grade between 1 and 30 April 2004 and
are proposed for promotion will be promoted with effect from 30 April
2004.
2.6. Calculating the accumulated points
Once the promotion committees have completed their work,
the
Director-General of DG ADMIN will formally decide on the number of
priority points allocated to each official without, however, deviating
from the formal intentions of the Directors-General, the Heads of Private
Offices or Commission Members, and also taking into account the proposals
drawn up by the Promotion Committees. This is the only decision that may
be contested. It is only at this stage that officials may lodge a
complaint with the appointing authority under Article 90(2) of the Staff
Regulations. 2.7. Promotion procedure
The subsidiary criteria which should serve to
decide between officials
whose points total coincides exactly with the promotion threshold have
been clarified. They represent a continuation of the general implementing
provisions adopted in 2002 and the practice followed by the promotion
committees in 2003.These subsidiary criteria are as follows: seniority in
the grade and factors relating to equal opportunities or the nature of the
duties undertaken. Officials with an identical total number of points
(irrespective of the type of points) are deemed to have the same merit.
Accordingly, other criteria must be taken into consideration to
distinguish between “ex aequo” officials.
2.8. Evaluation of the appraisal and promotion exercise
A joint monitoring committee has been set up for staff appraisal and
promotion. This committee meets at the start of the appraisal exercise and
again when the promotion exercise ends. It is responsible for harmonising
and improving the working methods of the joint evaluation committees and
for proposing appraisal standards suitable for use by every Commission
department. Finally, after the promotion exercise, it will deliver an
opinion on the operation of the promotion system. Additional information on the promotion exercise may be found at:
http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/index_en.html
Indicative promotion thresholds applying in 2004
The promotion thresholds proper to each grade will be stable from one year
to the next when the new promotion method has been in force for a
sufficiently long period of time, so allowing officials to accumulate a
sufficient number of points. The indicative promotion thresholds set out
below are the result of a statistical estimate. The definitive thresholds
will be known only at the end of the promotion exercise.
|
Promotion to grade
|
A4
|
A5 |
A6 |
A7 |
|
Rates |
14% |
24% |
26% |
50% |
|
Indicative threshold |
48 |
44 |
44 |
28 |
|
Promotion to grade
|
LA4 |
LA5 |
LA6 |
LA7 |
|
Rates |
14% |
24% |
26% |
50% |
|
Indicative threshold |
49 |
43,5 |
43 |
26 |
|
Promotion to grade
|
B1 |
B2 |
B3 |
B4 |
|
Rates |
10% |
15% |
20% |
35% |
|
Indicative threshold |
49 |
48 |
45 |
30 |
|
Promotion to grade
|
C1 |
C2 |
C3 |
C4 |
|
Rates |
10% |
15% |
20% |
35% |
|
Indicative threshold |
49 |
47 |
45 |
33 |
|
Promotion to grade
|
D1 |
D2 |
|
Rates |
20% |
35% |
|
Indicative threshold |
45 |
40 |
Comments
(i) These thresholds may vary slightly, depending on the budget
(operating, research) from which the officials are paid.
(ii) Promotion rates are expressed as a percentage of the number of
officials eligible for promotion.
Footnotes
1With the exception of certain
specific cases such as officials who are not in active employment at the
Commission when promotion decisions are taken, officials who obtained
fewer than 10 merit points in the previous appraisal exercise, officials
who are the subject of disciplinary procedures, etc.
2Under the general provisions for
implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, officials whose most
recent annual career development review contains an assessment of “poor”
or “inadequate” are not eligible for priority points.
3Officials working in the Private
Office of a Member of the Commission may also be allocated up to two
special priority points, which may not be granted cumulatively with points
granted by the promotion committees in respect of activities carried out
in the interest of the institution.
4There is a promotion committee for
each staff category A, LA, B, C and D. A promotions sub-committee has also
been established for staff paid from research appropriations in the
general budget.
|
