Unrest at the EPO Part 3 - SUEPO Strikes Back

What Merpel wanted to be doing

Merpel was looking forward to a day curling up under the late March sunshine in Lincoln's Inn Fields, but the IPKat has sent her once again to investigate and report the latest news of the worker unrest at the European Patent Office.

Merpel has already reported on the issues at some length here and here, and both posts have attracted a considerable number of comments. Now Merpel has been informed that the EPO figures for the number of people observing the strike were 1,706 people on strike on Friday, 883 on Monday and 994 on Tuesday.  This is of course rather less than the 3,697 people who voted for strike action.  There seem to be two reasons for this. One is that, as reported in the previous post, Examiners were not going to disrupt public functions such as Oral Proceedings.  The other is that, whereas a "yes" vote is secret, striking itself is a rather public act, which some EPO employees may have thought less than career-enhancing.

Moreover yesterday, on Thursday 27 March, EPO employees staged a demonstration at noon in front of the Isar building.  Despite frantic googling, Merpel has been unable to find detailed news of this.  Did the crowds cross the Ludwigsbrücke?  Did they storm the Museumsinsel?  We do not know.  But she has heard that police estimate the number at around 600, while unofficial estimates may be up to 1,000.

The IPKat does not know enough about the details of the dispute to suggest to the blog readership what they should think, and as a fictional feline his opinions matter little in any case.  But he does have some observations, and some further news to share.

• It is indisputable that working relations between the President of the EPO and a majority of workers are highly strained
• On the other hand, it has been generally agreed for many years that the EPO is in need of some considerable reform.  As an extraterritorial organisation, the usual methods of control and oversight are absent.  Therefore reform is particularly challenging.
• On yet another hand, the usual guarantees of worker rights are also absent because delays at the ILO-AT mean that there is no effective appeal process against unfair dismissal.
• On the final hand (luckily the IPKat has four paws), without trust and cooperation between the President and the Employees, successful reform seems highly unlikely.

But, the IPKat hears you cry, what of the Administrative Council?  This is made up of independent members from each of the Contracting States, representing the patent office of each.  The Administrative Council is there to exercise oversight over the President and the EPO administration, and also it is the Council, not the President directly, that makes so many of the rules complained of.

Well, this is where it gets complicated.  Doubtless the President will consider that the fact the Administrative Council is passing many of the reforms complained of demonstrates that it approves of his conduct. Critics of the President point to a different fact, that, on reflection, puts the Administrative Council in a rather difficult (and some say hopelessly compromised) position.  The Administrative Council is made up of representatives of national patent offices that are themselves highly reliant on fee income that ultimately derives from the EPO.  So as long as the money keeps rolling, they will be encouraged to give the President free rein.  The IPKat does not know whether this explains matters, but can see the force of the logic.

Against this background of mistrust, some further news becomes highly relevant.  Readers will recall that one of the original PEACES complaints was the new strike regulations in Circular 347, that (apparently -- Merpel has not seen the full document) made it the administration, not the Union or other separate staff body, that conducts strike ballots and determines whether a strike is to be permitted.  The "50 email" rule was reportedly developed to prevent unofficial mass communication.  Well, now further Circulars are being considered by the Administrative Council that will further decrease the independence of staff representation on the proposed new Staff Committee.  The nominations and elections are to be run by the Office, and the nomination provisions state "The President, upon proposal of the Supervisory Committee, shall reject all nominations which do not meet the conditions laid down in the applicable provisions or in the notice of elections..."  Thus the administration and the President are intimately involved in the process, which EPO employees says undermines its independence. 

In a further draft Circular concerning resources, while it is stated that "The Office shall make premises available to the Staff Committee to set up sufficient working space for Staff Committee members", it is then stated that "Such premises shall not be used for trade union activities".  The IPKat wonders therefore where union activities are supposed to take place.  Or are they to be banned entirely?

The proposed new voting system has also been criticised - for each Staff Committee (there is a Central one and a Local one at each branch of the Office) each employee gets only one vote, according to the proposal, whereas the Central Committee, for example, has 10 full and 10 alternate members.  Allowing only a single vote for a multi-member election will result in highly skewed  votes with less popular candidates getting in with very few votes indeed.

Many of the IPKat team represent users of the patent system.  Users should be concerned about this degree of unrest.

Finally, Merpel notes that documents from Mr Battistelli repeatedly refer to "social democracy" in relation to the ongoing and proposed reforms.  Can anyone tell her what it means?