|
GB.273/PFA/14/1
| ||
|
| ||
|
Programme, Financial and Administrative Committee |
PFA |
|
| |
FOURTEENTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Other personnel questions
Mobility of staff between field and
headquarters assignments
1. At the 271st Session (March 1998) of the Governing Body, the Employer spokesperson of the Programme, Financial and Administrative Committee requested that a paper on the mobility policy be prepared for the Committee for its meeting in November 1998.(1) This paper will review the personnel aspects of mobility. A broader discussion of the Active Partnership Policy is currently before the Committee on Technical Cooperation.(2)
2. Mobility of staff between headquarters and the field and vice versa has been an ongoing condition of service for ILO officials ever since field offices have been in existence. During the 1970s, marked by an increase in technical cooperation activities funded by extra-budgetary resources, efforts were made to reinforce the policy. The strengthening of the field structure, both through ILO offices themselves as well as the establishment of regional teams and regional centres (with extra-budgetary financing) and the increase in the number of regional advisers placed increased demands on the Office to staff positions in the field. A policy circular on mobility was issued in 1980 entitled "Transfer of staff between Geneva and the field" (ILO Circular, Series 6, No. 180), which outlined the requirements that headquarters staff should serve in the field and set out the conditions governing rotation.
3. In 1991, as the Office was examining the various issues that would later lead to the Active Partnership Policy, a number of personnel issues related to the rotation of staff between headquarters and the field were reviewed. Several conclusions were reached which indicated that, despite the rotation policy, the staff of the Office was largely divided between headquarters officials and field staff. This was particularly true for the staff in the regional teams and regional centres and for some in regional adviser positions. Most of these officials were funded by extra-budgetary or by RBTC resources and had been given the status of technical cooperation experts. Most were recruited externally without regard to geographical distribution, had not served at headquarters and were not provided with career prospects, although most were awarded senior grades (P.5) outside the normal classification framework. They were not eligible for internal competitions, and most were not eligible for contracts without limit of time. There was no expectation that these experts would serve at headquarters or enter the career service of the ILO.
4. The contractual situation and career prospects among the Professional core staff in regional and area offices was somewhat better since they were in the career service and benefited from all of the entitlements in the Staff Regulations. However, mobility of field staff to headquarters was still difficult. Overall, of all staff in the field in 1991, only 34 per cent had had experience at headquarters.
5. The rotation policy was not regarded by staff or programme managers at headquarters as an essential part of an ILO career. As most of the technical positions in the field had been filled in the past by external recruitment (regional teams, regional centres and regional advisers) with the status of expert accorded in most instances, staff in technical departments did not feel concerned about rotation to the field. While many of the core positions in regional and area offices required a substantive knowledge of the ILO's capacity and an ability to develop technical programmes, these positions were viewed as more administrative in nature. Incentives, if any, for field service were not considered sufficient; new staff were not always clearly informed that field service would be expected; and serving staff were not regularly reminded of their obligations for rotation. Resistance to field assignments was often reinforced by personal considerations (mortgage, children's schooling, spouse employment). Overall, among all headquarters staff in 1991, only 26 per cent had performed field service.
6. In preparation for the implementation of the Active Partnership Policy, the Director-General requested the Personnel Department to review the mobility policy with programme managers and with the staff representatives. A new circular, entitled "Mobility of staff between field and headquarters assignments" (ILO Circular, Series 6, No. 479) was issued in April 1992. This circular outlines the main policy elements concerning mobility and a number of practical measures for its implementation.(3)
7. The main policy elements are that both field and headquarters assignments are essential for staff in order to implement new directions in ILO programmes, to provide rapid and effective service to ILO constituents and to enhance the integration and coordination of programmes between departments and between headquarters and the field. Field and headquarters service are coherent and integral parts of career planning and career development and expected of all Professional staff in most areas of work.
8. Specific provisions include requirements for field and headquarters experience in virtually all management positions at headquarters; for headquarters experience in Professional positions in the field; for consultations with staff on mobility proposals; for Selection Board procedures to be respected; and for reasonable personal considerations to be taken into account in planning rotation. In accordance with article 4.3 of the Staff Regulations, mobility does not apply to General Service staff. The normal period of field service is defined as between three and five years.
9. The policy circular also outlines a number of practical measures to facilitate the implementation of the policy: notice to new officials; monitoring of vacancies for planning transfers; in-grade transfers without competitions for returning field staff; staffing reviews with programme managers; clarification on grading issues; and special provisions for missions and for training.
10. The ILO's mobility policy was summarized in a Joint Inspection Unit report to the UN General Assembly in 1993, with a concluding statement that "This initiative is certainly worthy [of] emulation by other agencies".(4)
Implementation of the policy
11. The mobility policy, as defined in 1992, was and remains an integral part of the Active Partnership Policy. Steps to implement the mobility policy were therefore closely coordinated with measures to strengthen the field structure and to establish multidisciplinary teams. Specific measures were taken at the outset to communicate and explain the new policy: departmental meetings to which all Professional staff were invited, chaired by a Deputy Director-General; the holding of "open fora" for all staff; special sessions on mobility and personnel issues in the Turin meetings on the establishment of the Active Partnership Policy with senior field and headquarters staff; the institution of semi-annual staffing reviews with each individual department (field and headquarters) to review transfers to and from the field; briefings in the Selection Board and the Administrative Committee.
12. In order to plan the projected number of transfers foreseen in the Active Partnership Policy and to match the qualifications and experience of staff with the new positions, as well as to ensure fair and equitable treatment of staff, a number of measures were taken. Job descriptions were established for the field positions in full consultation with the technical departments, where applicable, and with the Regional Directors. These descriptions were tailored to a field of specialization (e.g. employment strategies; social security; labour relations and labour administration) regardless of the duty station, and were classified at two levels (P.4 and P.5) in order to give an opportunity for field service to as many officials as possible. Provisions were also made so that the P.4-grade positions could be filled initially at the P.3 level for a two-year period prior to a promotion taking effect. The Personnel Department, in consultation with the technical departments and the Regional Directors, analysed the profiles of all the field staff in regional teams, regional centres and serving as regional advisers who had the status of experts in order to make recommendations on the full integration of these staff members into the career service of the Office. Recommendations were subsequently submitted through the Selection Board to the Director-General. The criteria used were technical expertise, performance, ability to pursue a career both at headquarters and in the field and integrity. Most of these staff were retained, although some were obliged to change duty station and others to combine new duties with their former ones. A few staff members opted for early retirement or transferred to other organizations. With the integration of these former experts, significant improvement was made in terms of equality of treatment between headquarters and field staff. Integrating the experts did, however, have a slowing effect for a number of years on the Office's efforts to establish better geographical distribution, sex and age balance among staff, since most of the experts were men, with an average age of 48 and from over-represented countries.
13. The table below sets out how the MDT positions have been filled over the past six-and-a-half years. As can be seen, 70 former regional advisers or members of regional teams or regional centres were assigned to the teams, and thus integrated into the career staff of the ILO.
Table 1. Number of MDT positions filled internally and by external recruitment
by field of expertise (1992 to mid-1998)
|
| |||||
|
Internal transfer |
Former regional advisers/teams |
External recruitment |
Number of posts
a
| ||
|
| |||||
|
1993 |
1998 | ||||
|
| |||||
|
Employment b |
18 |
18 |
5 + 2 c |
26 |
27 |
|
Training b |
2 |
8 |
7 |
14 |
14 |
|
Standards/labour law |
6 + 2 c |
5 |
3 + 1 c |
11 |
13 |
|
Labour relations/ administration |
6 + 1 c |
8 |
6 |
14 |
14 |
|
Entrepreneurship/
|
4 + 1 c |
6 |
6 |
12 |
14 |
|
Conditions of work |
4 |
- |
- |
4 |
3 |
|
Safety and health b |
3 + 1 c |
3 |
2 |
7 |
7 |
|
Social security b |
6 |
2 |
3 |
7 |
9 |
|
Women workers |
2 c |
4 |
3 + 2 c |
4 |
6 |
|
Statistics |
0 |
2 |
1 + 1 c |
3 |
3 |
|
ACTRAV |
3 |
8 |
11 + 2 c |
13 |
15 |
|
ACTEMP |
0 |
6 |
10 + 3 c |
12 |
14 |
|
52 + 7 c |
70 |
57 + 11 c |
127 |
139 | |
|
a
The number of staff movements is higher than the number of posts since some posts have been filled more than once during the 1992-98 period.
| |||||
|
| |||||
14. Efforts were made to encourage headquarters officials to take up field assignments. All shortlisted candidates for new recruitment to the ILO were and continue to be informed that mobility was an essential condition of service. Contracts for new officials now formally indicate that mobility is expected. For existing staff at headquarters, as mobility was an integral part of career development, positions were advertised and internal competitions were held for those posts that were subject to Selection Board procedures (MDT positions, area and regional office positions, except directors). These competitions had been preceded by staffing reviews in departments, in which mobility plans were outlined, and in many instances individual consultations were held with staff to encourage them to apply for field positions. A mobility officer was appointed in the Personnel Department who was available for information and consultation. In all cases where an official was being considered for a field assignment, extensive consultations have been held between the official and the Personnel Department.
15. The efforts to have headquarters officials take up field assignments have met with varying degrees of success. In the MDTs, as shown in table 1, 59 positions will have been filled by headquarters staff between 1992 and the end of 1998. At the outset of the APP, it had been recognized that it would be difficult to fill all of the vacancies with a combination of former regional technical staff and with headquarters officials.(5) There were several reasons: staff needed time to plan; programme managers at headquarters in some instances wished to retain staff to complete work items, knowing that it was unlikely that vacancies at headquarters could be filled quickly; in some departments it was not feasible to release a high number of officials immediately, and staggered staff movements had to be planned; and there was real resistance to change. Recognizing these factors as well as the need to fill vacancies, external calls for candidates were opened concurrently with internal competitions. As shown in table 1, by the end of 1998 it is anticipated that 68 MDT members will have been recruited externally for a direct assignment to the field, without headquarters experience.
16. Efforts to have headquarters officials take up assignments in regional and area offices have also met with mixed success. There are approximately 80 Professional field positions in these offices, including all regions (excluding branch offices and national correspondents). Positions include directors, deputy directors and programme officers in area and regional offices, as well as additional administrative, financial and personnel staff in the regional offices. Prior to the issue of the 1992 circular on mobility, many of these positions had been filled by external recruitment directly to the field. In particular, former experts and regional advisers who had not had headquarters experience were often appointed as area office directors.
17. The new mobility policy emphasized the importance of having headquarters experience as a requirement for positions of directors in area offices. This was considered essential in terms of the new functions of area office directors within the Active Partnership Policy particularly as regards a substantive knowledge of the ILO's mandate, policies and capacity, technical abilities to develop programmes and define country objectives as well as relations and administrative skills. Officials from technical departments were encouraged to apply for these positions, which was a departure from the past, and the response has been positive, given the number of positions available. As shown in table 2, overall 53 headquarters officials have taken up assignments in area and regional offices over a six-and-a-half-year period.
18. Table 2 also illustrates which major programmes had staff leave for field assignments and the type of assignments they took up. Those major programmes not included in the table did not have any official transfer on field assignments.
Table 2. Mobility from headquarters to the field (assignments of headquarters officials to the field)
(number of officials, 1992 to mid-1998)
|
| ||||||||
|
From |
To |
Total |
P. positions in headquarters major programme (1998) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Major programme |
MDTs |
Area Office/
|
Regional
|
|||||
|
| ||||||||
|
40 CABINET
|
1
|
4
|
-
|
6 |
5 | |||
|
50 NORMES |
6 + (2) a |
5 |
- |
11 + (2) a |
44 | |||
|
60 EMP/FORM
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
65 ENTREPRISE |
4 + (1) a |
2 |
- |
6 + (1) a |
21.5 | |||
|
80 REL/PROF |
5 + (1) a |
2 |
- |
7 + (1) a |
23.5 | |||
|
85 MULTI |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
3 | |||
|
90 TRAVAIL |
7 + (2) a |
4 |
- |
11 + (2) a |
34 | |||
|
100 SECTOR |
3 |
4 |
- |
7 |
21 | |||
|
110 SEC/SOC |
6 |
1 |
- |
7 |
17 | |||
|
120 STAT |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
12 | |||
|
125 POL/DEV |
4 + (1) a |
- |
- |
4 + (1) a |
12 | |||
|
130 INST |
2 |
- |
1 |
3 |
8 | |||
|
(INTERDEP) |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
- | |||
|
225 ACT/EMP |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
7 | |||
|
230 ACTRAV |
3 |
2 |
- |
5 |
21 | |||
|
160 PERS |
- |
4 |
2 |
6 |
21.5 | |||
|
170 FINANCE |
- |
- |
- |
- |
15 | |||
|
175 INTER |
- |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 | |||
|
180 PUBLNS/
|
- |
3 |
1 |
4 |
12 | |||
|
200 PROGRAM |
- |
2 |
3 |
5 |
13.5 | |||
|
220 RELCONF |
1 |
1 |
- |
2 |
64.5 | |||
|
245 PROPAR/TEC |
- |
2 |
2 |
4 |
7.5 | |||
|
Total |
52 + 7 a |
43 |
10 |
105 + (7) a |
||||
|
a Assignments between August and September 1998. | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
19. Parallel to the efforts to fill the field positions with headquarters officials, steps were also taken to assign field staff to headquarters, particularly for those who had never had a headquarters assignment. Of the 70 former regional advisers or members of regional teams/centres placed on MDT positions, between 1992-98, 27 have retired or resigned. A further 19 have been transferred to headquarters during the same period and 24 still have not had headquarters experience. In 1992-93 only 22 per cent of MDT members had had headquarters experience; in 1998 this percentage figure has risen to 32 per cent (Appendix I). Among the regional and area office staff who had not had headquarters experience in 1991, 13 officials have been assigned to Geneva. Of the 73 persons currently in post in the area and regional offices, 51 officials (or 70 per cent) have now had headquarters experience. Overall, of all officials currently in the field, including field offices and the MDTs, 46 per cent have had headquarters experience in 1998, compared to 34 per cent in 1991 (Appendix II).
20. Summary information on the number of staff movements during the 1992-98 period is provided in Appendix III. By the end of 1998 it is anticipated that there will have been 111 transfers from headquarters to the field and 97 transfers from the field to headquarters. As reported regularly to the Committee in the paper on the composition and structure of the staff, a shift of positions and staff from headquarters to the field has taken place with the implementation of the Active Partnership Policy. In 1992 some 80 per cent of all Professional staff were at headquarters; at the end of 1997 that percentage was 71 per cent.(6) Among all Professional staff in the Office there has been an increase in the percentage who have had field service between 1992 (33 per cent) and 1998 (45 per cent).
21. The above staff movements notwithstanding, difficulties persist in implementing the mobility policy with the optimum effectiveness. A number of vacancies remain. While at the outset of the policy it had been expected that several years would be needed to fill all of the vacancies, particularly in certain fields where comprehensive knowledge of the ILO was essential such as labour standards, there were optimistic expectations that the various stumbling blocks could be overcome within five years. This has not been the case in a number of instances. As of August 1998, there were 25 vacancies in the MDTs (of which five were new positions in 1998; ten had been vacant for less than six months; and ten had been vacant for more than six months). By the end of 1998 it is anticipated that appointments will be completed for a further eight posts, and one post will be eliminated, leaving 16 vacancies. Among the area and regional offices, there were 11 vacancies in mid-1998; nine of these positions are expected to be filled by the end of the year. In view of the difficulties in filling field vacancies, renewed efforts have been taken to strengthen the mobility policy and to review the planning process and the practical obstacles. These issues are included in the sections below.
Conditions of service and career prospects
22. Conditions of service for staff moving from headquarters to the field include the mobility and hardship package, which is applied throughout the common system. It consists of a one-time grant on assignment, as well as a continuing allowance, normally paid in advance, annually. The mobility and hardship package reflects the varying degrees of hardship at different duty stations, the number of assignments the official has had and whether or not he or she is entitled to payment of removal costs. The allowance varies according to the official's grade and family status. Depending on the hardship classification of duty stations there are additional benefits for field service: more frequent home leave and travel to visit dependants; additional scholastic travel; and additional shipment of personal effects. One specific component of the package -- the mobility element, which is an annual payment depending on the number of assignments (duty stations) undertaken for one year or more -- is only payable if an official has completed five years of service within the UN common system.
23. The common system mobility package was introduced in 1990 and reviewed by the International Civil Service Commission in 1996. A number of agencies for which mobility is an important part of career service (e.g. UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF and ILO) had tried to improve the package in 1996 and render it more flexible according to the needs of each organization. For example, the restriction on the mobility element to officials having more than five years of service is not compatible with the ILO's mobility policy to encourage new officials to take up field assignments within three to five years of service. In addition, the mobility element is not payable to new recruitments directly assigned to the field, whereas the ILO has been obliged to fill many MDT positions with new officials. In 1996, the ICSC basically did not modify the package, which was disappointing in terms of improvement but which was nevertheless considered a positive outcome, given some attempts to reduce the benefits.
24. In addition to the common system package, the ILO has introduced a number of measures to facilitate mobility. Missions to the duty station (prior to the assignment) and missions from the duty station to the regional office and to headquarters during the first year of assignment have been provided for in order to ease transfers and to ensure maximum briefing and some training. Special allowances, as provided for in the Staff Regulations, have been used to increase temporarily the salary of officials who are transferred to the field without promotion. Special arrangements for the storage of household goods at a previous duty station, in lieu of removal and provided the costs do not exceed the cost of removal, have been introduced. Special language training, including intensive courses, are available for officials, either before leaving or on assignment to the new duty station. These measures have been regarded by many ILO staff as insufficient, and other steps are under consideration, which are discussed later in this paper.
25. With the reinforcement of the Office's training programme in 1995, special efforts have been made to increase training opportunities for field staff. The amount of the decentralized training credits to the field have increased from 16 per cent to 20 per cent of the total Office training funds over the past three years. Central training credits have been allocated to regional offices for training programmes dealing with finance, personnel and administrative matters. Directors of field offices and of MDTs have participated on an equal basis as senior staff at headquarters in management training programmes set up since 1996. Technical upgrading programmes are available to all staff in the Office. For field officials, regional departments are requested to submit training plans in consultation with the directors of the MDTs and of offices. In addition, officials returning to or leaving headquarters are invited to consider what specific technical training they could undertake in order to adapt to the new assignment.
26. A key aspect of the mobility policy is that it is an integral part of career development in the Office. Mobility should promote, among ILO staff, a comprehensive understanding of economic and social issues in the world of work and engender a cohesive approach to the formulation and implementation of programmes. This requires a knowledge of the nature of work in the field as well as in headquarters and an understanding of the linkages (or multidisciplinarity) between the fields of action in ILO programmes. Mobility should enhance the capacities of staff by providing broader perspectives and richer experience than serving in one area or duty station alone would do. This should be the case for transfers to and from MDTs as well as field offices.
27. As practised in the past six years, mobility has taken different forms in terms of assignments and job content. As illustrated in table 2, officials from technical departments have had a greater tendency to take up assignments in MDTs than in field offices, although approximately 30 per cent of them have been assigned to the latter. Officials from the administrative and support departments have tended largely to be assigned to field offices. For officials returning from the field, most MDT members have been assigned to technical departments. Appendix IV provides details on the reassignments or assignments to headquarters of all staff (97 officials) who have been transferred to Geneva from 1992 to mid-1998.
28. Because service in the field and at headquarters provides broader experience and opportunities to undertake new tasks and gain greater knowledge of the world of work, mobility has also contributed significantly to career development by providing opportunities for promotion. Most headquarters officials who have undertaken field service have had opportunities to be considered for promotion, either while in the field or on return to headquarters. This was particularly the case for those who rotated in the first stages of the Active Partnership Policy when many senior specialist positions were available. While field service is not a guarantee of consideration for a D.1-level position, the lack of field service is a definite drawback. The Director-General made appointments to the D.1 level without field service in a limited number of cases. For staff assigned to management positions for the first time (e.g. area office director, MDT director) special allowances at the higher grade are awarded for a period of one year. Confirmation of the grade is subject to performance as reported by the responsible chief after a full year of service.
29. The mobility circular specifically states that field service is important for Professional jobs and will be taken into account in the selection criteria for all relevant jobs. Job descriptions and vacancy notices for senior Professional jobs have been carefully reviewed and field service has been included, in addition to the technical and other requirements, in most job descriptions at the P.5 level. In addition, the Committee will recall that in 1994, during consideration of the personal promotion system, field service was introduced as a requirement for all Professional staff to be eligible for a personal promotion as of the year 2000.(7)
30. In October 1996, the Director-General addressed a meeting of regional titular members of the Staff Union Committee in which he reviewed several major components of personnel policy. This address was later distributed to all staff members.(8) The Director-General drew attention to the need for mobility both from headquarters and from the field for all Professional staff; he highlighted the requirement for field service for senior positions; and he requested that proposals be submitted to him to improve practical arrangements and assist staff members with family responsibilities on transfer.
31. In line with the policy to reinforce mobility, the Director-General has also requested the Personnel Department and staff representatives to include mobility issues in the overall discussions on human resources development. Pending the outcome of those consultations and specific proposals, the Director-General has decided that promotions to the level of P.5 as a result of the classification procedures after 1 September 1997 should not be confirmed unless field service has been completed. Special allowances at the P.5 level will be considered and all classification cases from that date will be reviewed and retroactively applied should a revised policy so require.(9) Discussions between the Personnel Department and the staff representatives are still ongoing on this and the broader human resource development issues.
Issues for review
32. Six years after the establishment of the reinforced policy and of experience gained of its effects, there have been several initiatives to take stock of how well this policy has been implemented and on how it could be improved. The Governing Body's Working Party on the Evaluation of the Active Partnership Policy paid close attention to the mobility policy and its implementation. Its report is before the Committee on Technical Cooperation at the present session.(10) The Staff Union has launched a survey to gather opinions from staff members. The Personnel Department has organized meetings of returning officials to headquarters and has participated regularly in meetings of area office and MDT directors at the regional level, and recently held an open forum for all Professional staff.
33. The review presented in this paper also illustrates that there are a number of areas for improvement. While there is a general consensus that the policy is sound and constitutes an essential cornerstone of the Active Partnership Policy, a number of issues need to be addressed or redressed. From an overall personnel policy and management point of view, several developments over the past few years have given cause for concern. The first is the high number of external recruitments for senior policy positions in MDTs. The staffing in area and regional offices has improved significantly in this respect over the past six years. While the increase in headquarters officials' transfer to MDTs has been considerable in a short period of time, from 22 per cent of all specialists in 1993 to 32 per cent in 1998, the situation is far from satisfactory. New officials do not have a sound understanding of the ILO, its mandate or its programme, and it is virtually impossible for any training programme to compensate quickly for this lack of experience. In addition, hiring a large number of senior specialists conflicts with a recruitment objective of hiring young officials and affects the grade pyramid in the Office. The ideal situation should be that serving officials at headquarters take up field assignments and that vacancies at headquarters be available (obviously not exclusively) for returning field officials and new recruitments. Recruitment directly to field positions should be exceptional, or at least limited.
34. A second major concern is the time it takes to fill a vacancy in the field. There are several factors at play, depending on the vacancy in question. For new positions, job descriptions need to be established by regional and technical departments and opportunities offered to officials to apply through the Selection Board. While Selection Board procedures have been accelerated recently, the competition process must still be completed before an official or the programme manager can begin planning for transfer and for subsequent replacements. Direct selection, in consultation with responsible chiefs and officials, is an alternative to competitions, but should be used sparingly with strong justifications if current Selection Board procedures are to be respected. When new posts are filled by external candidates, experience has demonstrated that it often takes six months to identify a suitable candidate (even in cases of direct selection), bearing in mind the need for the highest levels of competence as well as other recruitment criteria, and then a further three to four months for the candidates to be available.
35. In the case of vacancies created by officials transferring from the field to headquarters, factors that affect dates of return include the availability of a position at headquarters that matches an official's profile; success in winning a competition; recommendations of programme managers, both in the field and at headquarters; and family-related matters such as school-year calendars or their spouse's employment. As regards filling the vacancy in the field, following an incumbent's planned departure, account must also be taken of the continued availability of a position in a given technical field, in view of the desire to maintain some flexibility in the composition of the MDTs. Other factors include current work programmes and the continued hesitation on the part of some officials and programme managers, as well as the selection procedure mentioned earlier. Steps are currently in hand to provide better information on mobility; to pursue mobility plans with departments and individual staff members more rigorously; and to institute an improved planning and follow-up process.
36. The continued reluctance of both some officials and some programme managers to undertake or to promote field assignments warrants urgent and strong action. Distinctions need to be made more clear between genuine and reasonable difficulties faced by certain officials and managers and those so-called difficulties that are based on strictly personal reasons or related to individual preference. Often personal and family-related reasons are invoked for refusing a field assignment. While each case needs to be examined and while some cases do present genuine difficulties, many cases are not credible. Such cases create a sense of unfairness and unequal treatment among staff who have the same or similar difficulties but who have nevertheless been willing to go to the field.
37. There is little doubt that positive measures are needed to overcome the genuine difficulties that face staff on mobility. A third area of concern, therefore, stems from the experience staff members have had (either on assignment to the field or on return to headquarters) in terms of preparation for relocation from one duty station to another. Relocation covers a broad spectrum of issues, ranging from personal and family-related matters, the spouse's employment, residence permits for family members remaining in a duty station, and accommodation possibilities to language training and technical training programmes. These issues are also being discussed with the staff representatives and staff at large to explore improvements.
38. As part of the discussions between the Personnel Department and the staff representatives on overall human resources development policies in the Office, specific mobility questions have been raised in addition to the ones cited above. These include the interface of mobility and career development: questions have arisen as to whether field service is essential for all areas of work and whether it should be a requirement for senior levels in the Office. There is also concern that, once transferred to the field, officials will face difficulties in returning to headquarters and will be obliged to take an assignment that is not fitted to their profile. The Office would face a real dilemma with its established statutory procedures for competitions and possibly legal obligations as well, if firm commitments on dates and assignments were required three to five years in advance for mobility to headquarters and the field. For an improved planning system of mobility to be effective, it will no doubt imply continued review of procedures for filling vacancies as well as greater exercise of authority.
39. Other areas that need adjustment and which may require changes in the Staff Regulations concern the application of certain entitlements such as education grant in the home country if this country is a duty station for an MDT or field office, frequency of scholastic and dependants' travel, definition of home leave stations and limited special leave provisions for moving purposes. It is planned to bring these various matters to the Committee's attention for decision, as appropriate, in the context of a report on the discussions on human resources development.
40. In conclusion, the mobility policy entails a complex set of issues that are both at the heart of the Active Partnership Policy and an essential element of human resources management and development in the ILO. The policy has represented a major cultural change in the Office and affects substantive programme matters, personnel and career issues as well as personal aspects and family matters. In view of this complexity, the policy has been difficult to implement, and a number of positive measures still need to be taken. Nevertheless, a great deal has been achieved in terms of unity of purpose and action in the Office and in terms of the number of officials who have been mobile and the knowledge and experience they have gained, which is brought to the service of the Organization.
Geneva, 24 October 1998.
Appendix I
Number of MDT staff with headquarters experience
|
| |||||||
|
1992/1993 |
1998 | ||||||
|
|
|
| |||||
|
Persons
|
With HQ
|
% of total |
Persons
|
With HQ
|
% of total | ||
|
| |||||||
|
Africa |
27 |
4 |
14.81% |
38 |
9 |
23.68% | |
|
Americas |
21 |
3 |
14.29% |
28 |
9 |
32.14% | |
|
Asia |
21 |
4 |
19.05% |
32 |
12 |
37.50% | |
|
Arab States |
5 |
3 |
60.00% |
9 |
3 |
33.33% | |
|
Europe |
7 |
4 |
57.14% |
12 |
5 |
41.67% | |
|
Total |
81 |
18 |
22.22% |
119 |
38 |
31.93% | |
|
1 As of September 1998. | |||||||
|
| |||||||
Appendix II
Number of field staff with headquarters experience
|
| |||||||
|
1991 |
1998 | ||||||
|
|
|
| |||||
|
Persons
|
With HQ
|
% of total |
Persons
|
With HQ
|
% of total | ||
|
| |||||||
|
Africa |
49 |
16 |
33% |
64 |
27 |
42% | |
|
Americas |
36 |
9 |
25% |
44 |
18 |
41% | |
|
Asia |
37 |
16 |
43% |
55 |
27 |
49% | |
|
Arab States |
- |
- |
- |
14 |
7 |
50% | |
|
Europe |
- |
- |
- |
15 |
10 |
66.6% | |
|
122 |
41 |
34% |
192 1 |
89 |
46% | ||
|
1 Of which 24 had been in service for more than five years as of July 1998. | |||||||
|
| |||||||
Appendix III
Professional staff movements
|
| ||||||||
|
Recruitments |
Departures |
Transfers from HQ |
Transfers from field | |||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
To HQ |
To field |
To HQ |
To field | |||||
|
| ||||||||
|
1992 |
44 |
56 |
27 |
15 |
14 |
2 | ||
|
1993 |
57 |
60 |
13 |
11 |
6 |
44 | ||
|
1994 |
72 |
60 |
24 |
25 |
11 |
21 | ||
|
1995 |
45 |
62 |
8 |
11 |
5 |
11 | ||
|
1996 |
34 |
72 |
21 |
16 |
16 |
14 | ||
|
1997 |
48 |
32 |
15 |
12 |
18 |
7 | ||
|
1998 a |
26 |
11 |
7 |
22 |
27 |
9 | ||
|
| ||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
Transfers (by region) | |||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
Transfers from HQ to field |
Transfers from field to HQ | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
92 |
93 |
94 |
95 |
96 |
97 |
98 a |
92 |
93 |
94 |
95 |
96 |
97 |
98 a | ||
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
Asia |
4 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
11 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
8 |
8 |
10 | |
|
Africa |
6 |
4 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
8 | |
|
Arab States |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 | |
|
Europe |
1 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
4 | |
|
Latin America |
3 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 | |
|
North America |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 | |
|
Total |
15 |
12 |
25 |
11 |
16 |
12 |
22 |
14 |
6 |
11 |
5 |
16 |
18 |
27 | |
|
a Estimated as of September 1998. | |||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
Appendix IV
Mobility from field to headquarters
1. Reassignment to headquarters of officials returning from the field (1992 to mid-1998)
|
| ||
|
Originating unit at headquarters |
Field assignment
|
Unit at headquarters on return |
|
| ||
|
CABINET
|
Area Office: 4
|
PROPAR/TEC, CAB
|
|
EMP/FORM |
MDTs: 4
|
EMP/FORM, ACTRAV
|
|
REL/PROF |
Area Office: 2 |
NORMES, REL/PROF |
|
NORMES |
MDT: 3
|
NORMES, REL/PROF
|
|
TRAVAIL |
MDTs: 7
|
TRAVAIL
|
|
SECTOR |
MDT: 1 |
SECTOR |
|
SEC/SOC |
MDT: 3
|
SEC/SOC
|
|
STAT |
Area Office/
|
PERS |
|
POL/DEV |
MDT: 1
|
POL/DEV
|
|
INST |
MDT: 2
|
EMP/FORM
|
|
MULTI |
Area Office: 1 |
SECTOR |
|
INTERDEP |
Area Office: 1 |
SECTOR |
|
PERS |
Area Office: 1
|
SECTOR
|
|
PROGRAM |
Area Office: 1
|
PROPAR/TEC
|
|
PROPAR/TEC |
Area Office: 1
|
DGA/TEC
|
|
REL/CONF |
MDT: 1
|
NORMES
|
|
INTER |
MDT: 1 |
POL/DEV |
|
ACTRAV |
MDT: 2 |
ACTRAV |
|
Total: 57 |
||
|
| ||
2. Former advisers/teams mobility to headquarters (1992-98)
|
| |||
|
Technical area in field assignment |
Unit on assignment to headquarters | ||
|
| |||
|
Africa
Social security
|
No. of staff
1
|
SEC/SOC
| |
|
Americas
Women workers
|
1
|
FEMMES
| |
|
Asia
Employment/MDT director
|
1
|
POL/DEV
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Total |
19 |
||
|
| |||
3. Staff recruited directly to field positions (both prior to 1992 and between 1992-98)
and assigned to headquarters (1992-98)
|
| |||
|
Technical area in field assignment |
Unit on transfer to headquarters (1992-98) | ||
|
| |||
|
Africa
Area office directors
|
No. of staff
4
|
SECTOR, NORMES, POL/DEV
| |
|
Americas
Deputy director
|
1
|
NORMES
| |
|
Arab States Programme officer |
1 |
TRAVAIL | |
|
Asia
Programme officers
|
2
|
PERS
| |
|
Europe
Employers' activities
|
1
|
ACT/EMP
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Total |
21 |
||
|
| |||
1. GB.271/10/2.
2. GB.273/TC/2.
3. Copies are available in English and French for Committee members on request.
4. United Nations General Assembly A/48/78, 24 Feb. 1993.
5. In view of this it was expected that MDTs, in particular, in the same region would share their expertise.
6. GB.271/PFA/8.
7. GB.261/PFA/7/7 (Nov. 1994); GB.261/4/34.
8. ILO Personnel Newsletter, No. 303, Nov. 1996.
9. ILO Circular Series 6, No. 575, 1 Sep. 1997.
10. GB.273/TC/2.