STU/65th Council/14/008
7 February 2014

Restructuring and redeployment off to a dubious start

At a time when we are all waiting for the consolidated list of posts proposed to be abolished, STU notes the following:

• The criteria for the proposition for abolition and re-establishment of posts are deliciously vague, and appear to vary on a case-by-case basis, according to the individual concerned and/or the manager responsible.
• The guidelines for managers (explaining how to handle the individual meetings of announcement of the proposals of post abolitions) were only issued in mid-January, but HRM has refused to transmit these to STU.
• Abolition of posts should normally be linked to corresponding reductions in programme activities; but we see no evidence of this.
• The ultimate objective of reducing staff costs, while maintaining as many posts as possible for redeployment, is being counter-acted by unilateral decisions by the Director-General:
  • Recruitments to vacant posts are still under way.
  • Transfers have been made to “safe” posts, thus limiting the number of vacant posts available for deployment.
  • A former ADG, for example, has been assigned to a field director’s post without the slightest competitive process, and other senior staff are being transferred directly to posts in the field, again without any competitive process.
  • Privileged staff members are being promoted, at the same time as others are likely to get the chop – posts are being created for specific individuals ahead of the general redeployment process in order to protect those individuals.
  • Extensions beyond the age of retirement are continuing, and not only in cases of exceptional need.
• The situation of G staff is the most critical of all: G posts were never supposed to be downgraded: this jeopardizes staff members concerned, will adversely affect their pension rights, and is a threat to the smooth functioning of the Organization – at the same time as it will ensure only insignificant savings for the Organization.
• Staff members are being called to individual interviews on possible abolition of their posts – these are often poorly prepared, according to unclear criteria, and take place in some cases with the participation of poorly prepared representatives of HRM; Sector/Service managers and HRM pass the buck to one another regarding the originator of the decisions. The interviews are often expedited in only a few minutes, without any explanations or serious justifications for proposed abolitions.

STU can cite numerous examples and evidence for each of these claims. We invite the Director-General and HRM to rectify these irregularities IMMEDIATELY and to reply publicly to this STU Info.

Let's join forces, join STU now!