After 15 years, from Luxembourg to Brussels in 7 months, really?
Remover Roma con Santiago [a Spanish idiom for the greatest possible effort – Ed.] but for what gain? Where is the win-win?
Out of the blue, in the middle of the worldwide Covid-19 health crisis lockdown and despite a reassuring draft work-programme promising growth and modernisation (4 May), our colleagues in the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea) received the news that Chafea (Luxembourg, the only executive agency based outside Brussels) is to be disbanded and its programmes reabsorbed by Brussels in the space of 8 months (of which less than 6 are now left).
Generation 2004 has attended several social dialogue ‘information meetings’ with our Chafea colleagues and DG HR where DG HR reaffirmed that:
- after 15 productive years and 3 successful public-health programmes,
- in an unprecedented time of pandemic where the borders were still closed,
- with a reduced number of staff on board (see the Generation 2004 Chafea staff survey results [1]),
- in spite of the proven track record of great work done at Chafea and the difficulties in finding equivalent expertise in Brussels (what about the talent management strategy [2]?)
- without having provided evidence for the justifications given,
- without having made clear the options available to staff,
- with no concrete plan on how this will happen (to avoid any accusations of having presented this as a ‘done deal’(!))
the move from Luxembourg to Brussels will be complete by the end of 2020!
For comparison, when the European Medicines Agency (EMA) moved its seat from London to Amsterdam it took 2.5 years and still there were cases of prolonged telework for specific cases.
The arguments for the Chafea move are unchanged:
- an unpublished[*] cost-benefit analysis, how’s that for transparency?
- Luxembourg is too far from Brussels….er…that’s a problem now? After 15 years? After more than 2 months of everyone working remotely, distance is an issue? Chafea also works with Stockholm (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) and Amsterdam (EMA): when did physical distance become a problem?
As far as Generation 2004 understands from the very limited social dialogue that has taken place so far (e.g. ‘information meetings’ have taken place only after the announcement), Chafea staff were hired for specific programmes and their rights are only guaranteed where they follow that programme. HR have promised more information on the options available for those who choose to remain in Luxembourg, meantime the individual consultation meetings with HR which started 11 May continue. So, is it correct that Chafea staff be pushed to make an (apparently non-binding) decision on their future based on incomplete and so-far-unpublished information on the options available to them? And does the Commission really consider “unemployment benefits” as a help for colleagues, as announced in the daily midday press briefing [3] on 30 April (03:40)?
Generation 2004 has requested and continues to request transparency: share the cost-benefit analysis (as we formally requested 15 May) and the options envisaged for those staff who chose to continue to work in Luxembourg.
We are living already in interesting times and unnecessarily adding to this uncertainty undermines the Commission claim to take staff well-being seriously: In the staff survey results [4] the Commission declares its commitment to pride in the job, willingness to give extra effort, feeling that the Commission cares about staff wellbeing, effective communication with staff, listening to staff and last but not least, states there that management is open to input from staff.
We encourage the colleagues in CHAFEA to contact us [5] and let us know of their individual problems and situations so that we can best defend their interests.
[*] Cost-benefit analysis [6] for the delegation of the management of the 2021-2027 EUprogrammes to executive agencies was published 11.11.2020: Chafea is to be disbanded and a new European Health and Digital Executive Agency established (in Brussels) in its place and here’s their reasoning: ‘… the transfer of all tasks to Brussels would enable more coherent distribution of agencies’ portfolios, an efficient size of all agencies, as well as the possibility to develop synergies across agencies, both in programme management and administrative functions’ (p. 39).