All news

STU/65th Council/14/017
12 March 2014

On 27 February 2014, as per the deadline, STU submitted to the Administration its comments and observations on the list of occupied posts proposed for abolition at Headquarters. In its extensive comments (see here – STU has also submitted specific comments for each post proposed for abolition which cannot be shared in view of the need for confidentiality), STU notes a large number of irregularities by senior managers which go against the guidelines and instructions provided in the memo of 27 November 2013 from ADG/BSP and DIR/HRM, a situation we would like to summarize as follows:

RESTRUCTURING PROCESS JEOPARDIZED

STU regrets that, despite numerous communications and agreements, the type, quantity and accuracy of the information provided for the list of proposed post abolitions, were not as good as expected. While this has made our task more complicated, it is also a matter of great concern about the overall exercise and the quality of its informative and strategic bases.

STU understands that the programmatic restructuring is guided by the list of expected result priorities that the Executive Board adopted in July 2013. However, a large number of the abolition proposals cannot be directly linked to these priorities. Often purely subjective considerations and favouritism, rather than adherence to established guidelines have led to arbitrary decisions. In this regard, STU also notes many disparities among sectors which risk giving rise to very unequal treatments.

STU has always insisted that the EO/AO reform be handled in a single exercise together with the main restructuring and redeployment exercise. The Administration has ignored our repeated appeals on this matter.

STAFF CATEGORIES UNDER PARTICULAR RISK

STU is concerned by the large number of G-level posts proposed for abolition in most sectors/services. Of particular concern is the case of lower level G staff (G4, G3 and G2) as there are almost no posts at this level available for redeployment. STU is worried that, in the frantic search for uncertain economies, the importance of G-level staff is being forgotten.

STU notes that there seems to be a strong tendency to downgrade posts to lower grades while, in principle, maintaining essentially the same functions for the incumbents.

REDEPLOYEMENT POTENTIAL UNDERMINED

STU denounces the significant number of staff movements that took place in the few weeks/months before the restructuring exercise, contrary to the clear instructions of the DDG (and to subsequent assurances to STU) that no such movements/placements would be authorized. In light of the absence of clear justifications, these transfers greatly reduce the number of posts available for redeployment.

A clear trend is also emerging, on the grounds of a lack of funding for regular posts, of using PA contracts or short-term/temporary assistance to cover functions that could and should be performed by staff members, against clearly-established UNESCO rules. PA contracts could be an acceptable redeployment option for the many incumbents of abolished posts who are close to (pre)retirement.

In such a situation, extensions of contracts beyond the statutory age of retirement are simply unacceptable.

The risk is that this exercise will further weaken and marginalize the Secretariat. STU has repeatedly demonstrated that it would be perfectly possible to redesign the staffing structure without any forced separation, by means of various measures.

STU demands that its comments be taken very seriously into consideration by the Director-General in order to avoid an avalanche of Appeals.

Let's join forces, join STU now!