SUEPO sent an open letter to the company Control Risks which we understand has been commissioned by the EPO to investigate staff members who are elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union.

We have now received a reply from Nick Allan, Regional Director (Europe & Africa).

The EPO has issued a communiqué confirming the use of external investigation firms. A copy of the communiqué and comments can be found on IPKat:

"The "best international standards" followed by the Investigative Unit don't include allowing the employee to be represented by a lawyer. Perhaps readers think that "lawyering up" at an early stage is an over-reaction, but consider that the employee may face dismissal without any of the safeguards of labour law available in the EU or other member states. The targets of investigation are severely restricted from even disclosing that they are being investigated, and apparently have an active duty to cooperate, so no "right to silence"; and the Investigative Unit (and by extension, Control Risks) has the power to invade the privacy of the subject to an extent that would cause uproar if it happened in a national patent office or in any private enterprise operating within the EU."

IPKat comments on the information that the EPO has commissioned the company Control Risks to investigate elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union.Control Risks describes itself as "an independent, global risk consultancy specialising in helping organisations manage political, integrity and security risks in complex and hostile environments".

IPKat 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?"

SUEPO understands that the company Control Risks has been commissioned by the European Patent Office to investigate staff members who are elected representatives of the Staff Committee and/or Staff Union.

An open letter sent to the company can be found here.

The reform of sick leave and invalidity constitutes another severe attack on both dignity and fundamental rights of EPO staff.

Explanations can be found in the publication available here.

After the first tripartite (AC/Office/Unions) meeting on 22 April where all parties expressed a cautious optimism that such engagement should lead to an improved social climate, a special Working Group (WG) was established to look into the particular issue of formal union recognition.

A report on the meeting can be found here.

In its 119th session the Tribunal delivered a total of 77 judgments, of which 24 cases involving the EPO. Of the 24 EPO cases, only one case was won by the complainant. The remaining 23 cases were dismissed, 13 summarily.

This paper discusses the cases that have broader relevance and the overall implications.

On 30 April 2015 some 800 colleagues marched from the PschorrHöfe complex to the Dutch consulate in Munich.The demonstration was covered by FOSS Patents:

"It's unfortunately true that the EPO, claiming immunity, behaves like an enclave that doesn't have to respect European/EU human rights and labor law standards." [...] "While I don't think Mr Battistelli's resignation would in and of itself represent a solution, I also don't feel he's unreplaceable. The Administrative Council should have decided to take the mediation route anyway and should simply have accepted his resignation.

FOSS Patents reports on the protests which continue at the EPO despite the promise of union recognition.The article also cites a SUEPO flyer titled A Brave New EPO explaining some key underlying issues behindthe governance crisis at the EPO:

"The stated reasons for certain reform measures are based on the nonsensical notion that the EPO "competes" with the USPTO, JPO, SIPO and other non-European patent offices. If it competes with anyone, it's with national patent offices, but national patent systems control the EPO through the Administrative Council and milk it (through high renewal fees that have an almost 100% gross margin for national patent systems)."

"Two-thirds of the applications filed at the EPO are not of European origin and thus are more likely to hinder European industry than benefit it. A flood of badly examined patents could affect in particular the small and medium-sized enterprises that cannot afford expensive litigation."

AFTER having pushed through a career reform that increased the salaries for newly recruited managers and stalls the careers of almost everybody else,
AFTER having accepted the next health reform that further weakens the position of staff who are sick or invalid, and
AFTER having confirmed the Council's "clear will to continue the policy of reforms to the benefit of users" (sic),

Mr Kongstad and Mr Battistelli called for a renewed social dialogue. Mr Kongstad and Battistelli "consider in particular that the formal recognition of the trade unions within the EPO’s legal framework could create the conditions to re-launch the process and to overcome some longstanding issues."

SUEPO obviously applauds the initiative to recognise a Union that represents half of the personnel of the EPO. This was indeed long overdue. However, we fail to see how Union recognition could solve any of the more urgent outstanding problems.

The next demonstration targets the Dutch consulate (see SUEPO flyer).