The CDR (Part III) : Therapy

3.1 Follow the Procedures

In order to have any hope of success with an appeal against a flawed Career Development Review (CDR) you must follow the rules of that procedure meticulously, no matter how silly they maybe. Here is some useful advice: read and follow the instructions in Sysper(verse)2, send any snailmail registered and any email with “Read Receipt requested” and with a courtesy copy to a colleague. Use your favourite text editor to write your parts of the CDR, then cut-and-paste them into Sysper(verse)2. Currently, there seems to be a purely technical limit of 16KB per block of text imposed by the system, but that is not legally binding if you choose to document your side of the story in deeper detail.

3.2  Burden of Proof

In Germany, at least, it is settled case law that an employee who demands an above average evaluation must carry the burden of proof.[1] A natural corollary of this idea is that the Reporting Officer

 who decides to give a below-average evaluation must clearly define his/her norm of what is “average” and then report verifiable facts showing that the Job Holder has performed below that level. EU labour law has not yet caught up with German developments, but that is more a call to action than a reason to despair. We are free to apply the reasoning of the supreme German labour tribunal (BAG  give its full term in German), by politely but firmly refusing to state any reasons at all why we should be spared a bad evaluation in our discussions with the Reporting Officer

The effect of a below mediocre CDR is to delay the next promotion, for ever in the worst cases. This might translate into circa 100 EUROs less pay per month, which seems harmless to the superficial observer, but becomes more threatening when the long term effects are considered. Only a very small minority among those who fall behind in the race for promotions will be able to later catch up with and surpass their more successful peers: a young colleague might loose 36.000 = 100 x 360 EUROs in terms of lifetime earnings if s/he has another three decades (360 months) left to serve the European Union.[2] In penal law, 36.000 EUROs is quite a stiff fine; let us be glad that there the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those who wish to punish us.

In the caricature of penal law that passes for a disciplinary code within our Institutions, a block on promotions is a medium harsh penalty which has been imposed on thieves and embezzlers. Even that code puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Are there any examples of “legal” systems that impose the burden of proof on the defendant? Sure: we can find them in the Inquistion, the KGB and Guantanamo. The CDR is eroding our civil liberties and human rights by treating us worse than accused criminals. When you ask the Reporting Officer to explain and prove his/her reasons for putting you down as a bad employee, you are being reasonable, fair and you are helping to defend everybody’s rights.

Advice: make it clear from the outset that you will accept a score below average only if it is accompanied by a thorough written explanation. We are willing to critically review such papers with a view to facts, logic and legality.

3.3 The Improvement List

Life goes on, even if you have had bad year and the Reporting Officer documents your failings. Here’s how. The poor old Reporting Officer has yet more work to do because it is up to him/her to provide you a clear list of things to do for the sake of improvement. It is not enough to write something like “Improve your service culture.” because we are working for the European Union and not for the Church of Scientology! There must be nothing except achievable tasks and their success-criteria on that list.

As you work your way down the improvement list during the subsequent twelve months you should report the successful completion of each item to your Reporting Officer and obtain his/her written confirmation. In our hierarchical system crazy bosses are free to do crazy things to us, so we must be prepared for those rare cases where the Reporting Officer tries to give a second poor evaluation after the improvement list has been completed. Such arbitrary misbehaviour by an Reporting Officer would eventually be followed by appropriate measures.

3.4 An Answer to Sysper(verse)2

Please send us copies of the proceedings in your case; photocopies to our office, electronic copies to

ADL-Webmaster@internet.lu. For privacy’s sake you should take time to delete people’s names and

other references that would allow the hierarchy to positively prove that you revealed their misdeeds to a union like the A&D-L. Our first action upon receiving information from you will be to recheck it for identifying marks and to obliterate them. We will then add your testimony to our CDR file.

3.5 Calm after the Storm

As far as DG ESTAT is concerned,  Mr. Hanreich, its Director General, has agreed to review with us and improve the system for DG ESTAT when the 2005 round of the CDR is completed. Give him a chance to help, by informing him about problems you have encountered. Remember; he is not clairvoyant, he needs to see the evidence for himself.

To be continued with some improvement suggestions in Part IV entitled  “Priority Points and other Enigmas”.