How the EPO's sick leave policy stacks up internationally

In a post earlier this week on the continuing unrest at the EPO, Merpel mused on whether the EPO’s proposals to reform sick leave and long term invalidity policies were really so very different to the policies applying in other intergovernmental bodies and IP offices in Europe. Here's what she wrote:

She wonders: can some kind reader compile a comparative table of sickness-related provisions and benefits that apply for each of the organisations mentioned above, and any others she may have overlooked, so that she can publish it here and readers of this weblog can see for themselves whether the EPO staff have a genuine grievance or are merely in training for the Marathon Moan event at the next Olympics?

Well, this cri de coeur came up trumps. A very kind reader, who shall remain anonymous but who deserves enormous thanks nonetheless, has prepared a detailed comparison of the sick leave policies of the EPO as they currently stand and as proposed to be reformed (explained here), set against those of the following bodies:

• CERN
• European Commission
• NATO
• OECD
• UN
• WIPO
• World Bank
• Austrian Civil Service
• German Civil Service

The document, which Merpel has hosted here, goes far beyond what Merpel had hoped for. The author cites sources carefully, explains the conclusions reached, and provides measured analysis of how the EPO’s regime compares to the other organisations listed. If any kind reader with knowledge of OHIM’s sick leave policy can add to this table and/or provide a copy of the sick leave provisions, Merpel would be very interested to know how it compares. She assumes it mirrors the EC provisions, but perhaps not. 

Table 1: Main Findings

Organisation	Number of days of uncertified sick leave in annual cycle	Maximum duration of uncertified sick leave (working days)	Latest day of sick leave on which a medical certification has to be issued
CERN	n/a	3	4
EC	12	3	4
EPO current	12	3	4
EPO proposed	3	3	1 – 4
NATO	6	2	3
OECD	9	3	2
UN	7	2	3
WIPO	7	3	4
World Bank	n/a	5	6
Austria, civil service	n/a	3	4
Germany, civil service	n/a	3	4

Merpel’s most concise explanation of the main table of findings, reproduced above, will follow an imaginary employee – let’s call him Benny -- who has the flu and is absent from work for a few days as a result. 

The middle column tells us that in most organisations surveyed, Benny can only be absent from the office without a doctor’s certificate for 2 or 3 days. In NATO and the UN, for instance, Benny needs to have a doctor’s certificate if the absence lasts beyond two consecutive days. At the EPO and European Commission, Benny needs to visit a doctor and obtain a certificate if the absence lasts beyond three consecutive days. So far, so good, and the EPO is in line with most of the other organisations.

Assume Benny has returned to work after three days’ absence. Six months later, he gets food poisoning and is incapacitated for 24 hours, requiring him to take a day off work. In every organisation surveyed, including under the EPO’s current regime, Benny could report in sick, tell his boss he expected to be in tomorrow, and this would be excused. Under the EPO’s new regime however (see column 1), Benny would already have completely exhausted his entitlement to uncertified sick leave for the full year, and would thus be absolutely required to visit the doctor that day and obtain a certificate to prove he was ill. He would have to produce that certificate to the EPO on the same day. (Merpel doesn't know how this works in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, and has only the sketchiest understanding of human healthcare, but she sometimes has difficulty in getting a same day appointment with her vet. Presumably humans never have such problems.)

Benny would have to juggle these obligations with the requirement that he be at home between the hours of 10am – 12 midday and 2 pm – 4 pm in case the EPO decided to send a doctor to the house to check he was not malingering. He could leave the house, if he managed to get in touch with the President of the EPO and Mr Battistelli was agreeable to his absence from home.

For readers who want to read more and to verify that the data is reliable for comparison purposes, Merpel  can only suggest they pore over the details provided by her anonymous source in the linked document.

Merpel's own instinctive reaction is that the current allowance of 12 days uncertified leave in both the EPO and European Commission appears very generous,  but this does not justify the level of bad faith and suspicion evident in the reformed system. What employee could feel that there can be a relationship of trust with an employer who insists on a doctor’s certificate being provided on the very first day of an illness and who also (uniquely among the organisations surveyed) imposes an obligation to wait at home for the company doctor to ferret out fraudulent claims of illness during both morning and afternoon on each and every day when one is ill.

Finally, while the survey mentions the sick leave policies of the German and Austrian civil services, Merpel wonders if there are any readers willing to share how sick leave operates in each of the national IP offices which are under the stewardship of the delegates to the Administrative Council. These delegates had no hesitation in imposing the new sick leave regime on EPO employees at the request of the EPO President. Merpel wonders:

• Did the AC delegates approve the EPO's new regime because similar provisions already apply in their own national IP offices? 
• If not, should readers expect their AC delegates to push through similar reforms on their home turf?
• If the national regimes are more liberal, and the AC delegates don't intend to push through similar reforms at home, is there something in the Weissbier that causes one's views to harden while in Munich and to soften on the plane or train home?

Merpel thinks she knows the answers -- but she would love to be wrong.

As ever, Merpel welcomes comments, but begs to remind readers of the following:

Henceforth, in respect of all EPO-related blogposts, no comment will be posted if it is merely ascribed to "Anonymous".  Any reader wishing to conceal his or her identity must adopt a pseudonym (which should not be obscene and should not be the name, or the mis-spelling of the name, of a real person).  The pseudonym need not be an actual login name, as long as it is stated clearly at the beginning and/or end of the comment itself. This way, it will be easier for people who post later comments to identify and remember the earlier comment-poster and to recall the discussion string.  Where, as has already happened on occasion, a string carries over from one blogpost to a later one on the same or a related subject, readers will be encouraged to use the same pseudonym for the sake of continuity.