At its meeting of March
2003, the ICSC[1]
adopted a new methodology, the main elements of which,
in the case of headquarters locations, were as follows:
- Even where
staff representatives do not take part in salary
surveys, the reviews shall remain valid;
- Staff representatives
shall be required, on pain of sanctions, to respect
the confidentiality of the entire procedure and
of any information provided, unless such information
has been published by the ICSC;
- The second
of these provisions would undermine the very grounds
for union representation in such procedures.
The ICSC also adopted
the following principles applicable to non-headquarters
duty stations:
- Increase in
the number of comparators (employers whose salary
and employment conditions are considered within
the scope of a comparative study) in the various
duty stations;
- Increase in
the proportion of public sector employers used
for comparison (25 to 33%);
- Use of alternative
survey methods in the enterprises selected (information
gathered by means of telephone calls to regional
headquarters, no contacts with staff representatives
from the enterprise concerned).
Those decisions were
an obvious erosion of the Flemming principle and would
lead to significant reduction in salaries at non-headquarters
locations. There was a strong likelihood that such
measures would subsequently be extended to headquarters
locations.
At the initiative of
the ILO Staff Union, a system-wide extremely quick
mobilization was organized, to protest against ICSC
decisions, and to request, directly as well as via
Agencies’ Field Representations and Heads of Secretariats,
that they be reconsidered. An EGM held on 25 June
confirmed the determination and unity of all ILO staff
members.
It is worth noting that
on this very issue the Staff Union Committee and the
ILO Administration were on the same wavelength regarding
this issue, and remained in permanent contact with
a view to making a joint assessment of the best way
to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation for locally
recruited staff in all duty stations, at headquarters
and in the field. In a great many duty stations1,
activities had been undertaken jointly by the Unions
and Associations of all organizations belonging to
the common system. It was a demonstration of the solidarity
among staff and their refusal to accept the diktat
that the ICSC was trying to impose.
Thanks to this unprecedented
united action, the ICSC, after the Human Resources
Network[2],
accepted to reopen the discussion. While it had been
agreed during a meeting in New York between FICSA
and CCISUA representatives and the Chair of the ILO
SUC that the concerns of all staff would be voiced
by FICSA, speaking on behalf of the whole of the system
– this testimony of unity created a strong impression
on the HR Network and the ICSC – the following joint
statement was made by the Director of HRD on the
HR Network Meeting:
"Both the representatives
of the ILO administration and the ILO Staff Union
are most concerned by the modifications to the
above methodologies. Negative reactions from staff
serving in ILO field offices throughout the world
continue to flood in as part of a movement involving
staff from all UN agencies at the duty stations.
A committed field staff is imperative to ensure
high quality of services and good delivery rates
by agencies. Without their continuing motivation
and dedication to duty, agency field operations
will suffer. The changes to the methodologies,
particularly the increases in the number of comparators,
are likely to have a negative impact on salary
levels for local staff and accordingly the UN
common system will lose its competitivity in the
market place. Given the reaction of our staff
to the changes, as responsible administrations
we must be aware of potential implications including
a deterioration in staff-management relations,
all the more so when the decisions made on the
revised methodologies cannot be justified purely
on technical grounds. Finally, it would be appropriate
to recall two of the most salient points of the
Flemming Principle: the paramount consideration
in the employment of the staff and in the determination
of the conditions of service shall be the necessity
of securing the highest standards of efficiency,
competence and integrity ... and the organizations
of the United Nations system must be competitive
with those employers in the same labour market..."
The analysis made
by FICSA of the outcome of the ICSC meeting in
New York was communicated as follows to the ILO SUC:
"As you all know
there was an enormous global mobilization from all
staff, HQ and non HQ duty stations, who were concerned
that the changes in the methodology, if implemented
as suggested could further diminish the relevance
of the Flemming Principle in establishing conditions
of employment in the field. We thank
the effort of the ILO SU and its members in the field
for their hard work. It was no easy task but
perseverance, sound arguments and the petitions did
pay off. Thank you for the work of the ILO SU
here and in the field.
There were no concessions
by the ICSC on the number of comparators or percentage
of the pubic/non public sector; however, after initial
refusal to reopen the debate on the methodology, the
Commission did agree to discuss the CRP written jointly
by FICSA, CCISUA with support from the ILO Staff Union.
The CRP proposed changes to the actual text of the
methodology that aimed to introduce provisions for
enhanced transparency, clarity in the allocation of
responsibility and accountability, flexibility in
the application of revised categorization and retention
criteria for public sector comparators, and safeguards
to avoid and uncontrolled recourse to alternative
data collection techniques. Measures for
the improved role and responsibilities of the LSSC
were also presented.
The agreed upon changes to the language of the methodology
and accompanying comments, as well as the concluding
remarks demonstrate that there were some gains but
efforts will need to be made for capacity-building
at the field level."
The ICSC decisions
read as follows:
" Headquarters
Methodology
The Commission decided
to:
- Approve, with effect
from 1 January 2004, the revised methodology for
conducting surveys of the best prevailing conditions
of employment at headquarters duty stations as presented
by the secretariat;
- Adopt the confidentiality
pledge letter, as amended, to be annexed
to the methodology;
- Approve the schedule
for the sixth round of headquarters surveys.
Non-Headquarters
Methodology
The Commission agreed
with the proposal of the secretariat that changes
relating to confidentiality and transparency of the
exercise that it had approved for the headquarters
methodology, including a written confidentiality pledge,
would be equally applicable to the non-headquarters
methodology since the survey processes under the two
methodologies were broadly the same.
The Commission decided
to approve, with effect from 1 January 2004, the revised
methodology for conducting surveys of the best prevailing
conditions of employment at non-headquarters duty
stations as presented by the secretariat subject
to a number of modifications proposed by the staff
representatives. Those modifications related,
inter alia, to further clarifying the survey process
and the responsibilities of the survey participants,
including the role of the Headquarters Steering Committee
and the LSSC, as well as to reflect some factual changes
that had taken place since the last methodology review."
The emphasis added in
the terms of ICSC decisions clearly shows that Staff
concerns were not unheard – how could they not be
heard, being so loud and clear?
What is most important
in these decisions, is the amendment of the confidentiality
pledge to respect the rights of Staff Representatives,
and the re-established importance of Local Salary
Surveys in making decisions.
It now appears of the
utmost importance to ensure that staff representatives
in the Filed be properly trained, to ensure their
full and active participation in salary surveys. The
SUC will work together with all its representations
in the Field to ensure that the relevant training
may be imparted on time to those in need.
1
Reports on activities undertaken have been received
from ILO offices in Abidjan, A ntananarivo, Bangkok,
Beirut, Bonn, Brasilia, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Colombo,
Islamabad, Jakarta, Kathmandu, Lima, Lusaka, Manila,
Moscow, New Delhi, Port of Spain, San Jose, and Tokyo.
2
Composed of HR departments of the various UN Agencies
