All news

STU/66th Council/14/006
10 April 2014

Dear colleagues,

You will find below the oral intervention, delivered by STU on 9 April 2014 during the meeting of the FA Commission at the 194th Session of the Executive Board.

*_*_*_*_*

1. STU is convinced of the need to reform the Organization in the context of the current crisis. However, STU is seriously concerned by the consequences of these structural changes on staff and on programme implementation.
2. While programmatic restructuring should be guided by the list of priorities adopted by the Executive Board in July 2013, STU notes that a large number of proposed post abolitions are not related to these priorities. That is why STU has indicated in its comments on the proposed post abolitions that these proposals were inconsistent, contradictory, ineffective and arbitrary.
3. In addition, STU notes that there have been staff movements (including promotions) especially in recent months before the redeployment exercise, as well as unjustified external and internal recruitments.
4. Furthermore, STU is convinced that the financial savings arising from the reform and restructuring remain to be demonstrated.
5. First of all, STU regrets the lack in the new structure of significant reductions in senior management posts: eleven such positions are currently occupied by people who are beyond the age of retirement. At the same time, in field offices, post abolitions, most of which concern low grade posts, mainly affect non-international positions, which translates into the separation of holders of those posts.
6. Moreover, the ongoing institutional work is being carried out increasingly by short-term contractors (PA, consultants, etc.) in complete violation of UNESCO rules and regulations and at the expense of equitable geographical representation. This is unacceptable because it does not make for savings and it also contributes to the loss of institutional memory, as well as, the universality of the Organization. It should also be noted that the real number of permanent staff is not as great as the one presented to the Executive Board.
7. STU also denounces the total lack of anticipation by the Bureau of Human Resources Management (HRM) to redeploy staff according to their skills and including training needs.
8. Finally, the restructuring presented to the Executive Board is only temporary, since it does not include the reform of executive offices and administrative units (EO and AO), which is still ongoing.
9. All this leads to a restructuring which has different speeds, and is even occasionally arbitrary, while irreparable damage to the Organization and its staff could have been avoided with better planning, anticipation, transparency and fairness.

This is why STU has serious doubts on the proposed restructuring, owing to the consequences of the Organization’s management on staff and the capacity of the Organization to effectively implement the programme in the service of its Member States.