Reports of the Programme, Financial and
Administrative Committee

Second report: Personnel questions

Contents

Statement by the staff representative
Amendments to the Staff Regulations
Report of the International Civil Service Commission
Report on the Board of Trustees of the Special Payments Fund
Matters relating to the ILO Administrative Tribunal

1. The Programme, Financial and Administrative Committee of the Governing Body met on 12 November 1997 and was chaired by Mr. A. A. El Amawy (Government, Egypt). Mr. U. Kalbitzer (Government, Germany) was the reporter.

Statement by the staff representative

2. Recalling that the Organization's improved financial position should also be beneficial for staff, the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee said that, for the Union, staff development was as much a priority as financial and programme matters. Hence the pressing need for a collective bargaining mechanism and the implementation of a global, rational and forward-looking personnel policy. One of two joint working parties set up by the Administrative Committee was focusing on five key areas: profiling staff skills; career development; fair mobility policy; work appraisal; and training.

3. In accordance with the Committee's own previous decisions, changed selection and recruitment procedures provisionally introduced by circular should have been integrated within global human resources management and accompanied by a discussion on evaluation criteria. Although the Committee had asked the Office to communicate the interim results at its March 1998 session so that it could monitor the effects, so far nothing had been done. The Administration did not seem to give the requisite priority to the need for the Administrative Committee to discuss these criteria or the application of the circular. The Union insisted that appropriate steps be taken for such discussions to begin as soon as possible.

4. Discussions in the working parties and other joint committees should allow a global picture to be built up of the Office's staffing requirements. The Union's goal was that the Organization should have at its disposal the quality and quantity of human resources that it needed to become a centre of excellence based on highly qualified and motivated staff.

5. As regards the agenda items and related documents, the Staff Union Committee was pleased that the ILO Administrative Tribunal had been recognized by three more organizations; it also took note of the proposal to postpone implementation of the part of the UN General Assembly resolution concerning the Geneva post adjustment and trusted that Geneva-wide staff-management consultations would ensure that the interests of both staff and organizations would be safeguarded.

6. He emphasized the determination of Geneva staff unions to defend members' rights: as part of a worldwide mobilization, staff would be demonstrating on 13 November for a truly independent international civil service; job security; respect for fundamental labour rights; and enhanced security measures for field staff.

7. In conclusion, he affirmed the Staff Union Committee's determination to take an active part in all discussions that would serve to bring about a genuine human resources management policy based on staff abilities and interests and the fundamental objectives of the Organization.

Amendments to the Staff Regulations
(Twelfth item on the agenda)

Amendments approved by the Director-General

8. The Committee had before it a paper⁽¹⁾  reporting on the amendments approved by the Director-General during the preceding 12 months under the authority delegated to him. The amendments concerned articles 3.1 (Salary scales), 3.11 (Mobility, Hardship and Non-Removal Allowance), 3.12 (Family Allowance in the Professional Category and Above), 3.14 (Education Grant), 3.14bis (Special Education Grant), 9.3 (Travel Expenses upon Appointment) and 9.4 (Travel Expenses upon Transfer). All the amendments had been previously announced in ILO Circulars.

9. Mr. Oechslin (Employer member), addressing this item and also item 14 (Report of the International Civil Service Commission), noted that the former was for information only, while on the second the Committee had little option but to follow the recommendations of the ICSC, even though these dealt with matters of substance. Stressing that it was not his purpose to call into question the Director-General's fundamental responsibility for personnel administration, he considered that the Committee had a role to play with respect to key aspects of personnel policy, and that it was essential that it should have an opportunity to do so. He had in mind two key aims of the Director-General's personnel policy: on the one hand the objective, which the Employers supported without reservation, of making the ILO a centre of excellence in the fields of employment and labour, whose achievements and advice would command respect internationally; and on the other the principle of staff mobility, which the Employers similarly supported. In certain circumstances, in the Employers' view, these policy components could become contradictory, especially if they were applied in an inflexible manner, for example to technical or specialized departments or to departments with limited staff resources. He brought the Employers' concern to the attention of the Director-General and of the Committee, and expressed the hope that, without encroaching on the responsibility of the Director-General, the Governing Body would have an opportunity at the next session for an in-depth discussion of these issues.

10. Mr. Gray, for the Worker members, was pleased to note, with reference to the amendments to articles 9.3 and 9.4, that an anomaly which acted to the detriment of field staff had been removed.

11. The Committee took note of the document.

Report of the International Civil Service Commission
(Fourteenth item on the agenda)

12. The Committee had before it a paper⁽²⁾  informing the Governing Body of the recommendations of the ICSC to the General Assembly of the United Nations concerning the base/floor (net) salary scale for staff in the Professional and higher categories. The document also provided details on the ICSC's report to the General Assembly on the issue of the post adjustment in Geneva.

13. Mr. Marshall, for the Employer members, referred to Mr. Oechslin's comments on the preceding item and noted that the Governing Body really had no option but to accept the point for decision (paragraph 11) as it concerned common system policy.

14. Mr. Gray, in supporting the point for decision, commented that, because of the principle of "no gain, no loss," staff in the Professional and higher categories would receive no real benefit from the salary increase. He also asked that the Director-General make known in the appropriate UN bodies that the Workers' group was totally opposed to the proposed reforms being considered by the UN General Assembly with respect to the Geneva post adjustment, which were unjust, impractical and probably illegal.

15. The representative of the Government of Germany said that the point for decision raised certain problems. He noted that it had been the practice of the Governing Body to accept ICSC recommendations before they were considered by the UNGA. In this case, however, the level of salary increase being proposed was considerably beyond what many member States would consider justified. As the recommendation would not take effect until 1 March 1998, it would be better if the Governing Body postponed its decision until the outcome of the General Assembly's deliberations were known. This may entail retroactive payment of salaries, but at least the Governing Body would then be able to make an appropriate decision.

16. The representative of the Government of the Russian Federation, in reply to Mr. Gray's comment, drew attention to the fact that the determination of the post adjustment was delegated by the ILO to the UN common system bodies with the acceptance by the ILO of the ICSC Statute. Since there were no ICSC recommendations to make any drastic changes in existing methodology for the determination of the Geneva post adjustment, it was premature for the Governing Body to consider this issue, and any attempt to influence the UN General Assembly was unacceptable.

17. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body --

(a) endorse the recommendations of the ICSC, subject to their approval by the United Nations General Assembly, concerning measures applicable to staff in the Professional and higher categories, namely an increase of 3.1 per cent in the base/floor (net) salary scale and a review of staff assessment rates for staff without primary dependants, with effect from 1 March 1998;

(b) authorize the Director-General to give effect in the ILO, through appropriate amendments to the Staff Regulations, to the measures referred to in subparagraph (a), subject to their approval by the General Assembly.

Report on the Board of Trustees of the Special Payments Fund
(Fifteenth item on the agenda)

18. The Committee took note of the forty-fourth report of the Board of Trustees of the Special Payments Fund⁽³⁾  which had been submitted for information.

Matters relating to the ILO Administrative Tribunal
(Sixteenth item on the agenda)

19. The Committee had before it a paper⁽⁴⁾  proposing approval of the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO by three international organizations: the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

20. Mr. Marshall welcomed the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction by the three organizations and recommended approval. However, noting concerns over the additional expenditure implications of certain decisions taken by the Committee earlier, and noting that the ILO bore certain overhead costs of the Tribunal that might be shared with other users of the Tribunal at little cost to them but more significant saving to the ILO, he suggested that the Office charge organizations for the total cost of operating the Tribunal.

21. Mr. Gray felt it was important to recognize the prestige accruing to the Organization for its role with regard to the Tribunal, and did not agree with the idea of passing on the full costs of the new registrations, at least for the time being. The Workers agreed with the point for decision.

22. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body approve the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, with effect from the date of such approval, by --

(a) the International Organization for Migration;

(b) the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology;

(c) the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Geneva, 14 November 1997.

(Signed) U. Kalbitzer,
Reporter.

Points for decision:

Paragraph 17;
Paragraph 22.

1. GB.270/PFA/12.

2. GB.270/PFA/14.

3. GB.270/PFA/15.

4. GB.270/PFA/16.

For further information, please contact the Official Relations Branch at Tel: +41.22.799.7732, Fax: +41.22.799.8944 or by e-mail: dale@ilo.org