STATEMENT
by the General Secretary of FICSA, Mr. André J. Heitz

Mr. Chairman,

I will address four issues in this opening statement: the arrangements for the dialogue with the staff representation; the procedures for future cooperation; the arrangements for the functioning of the Federation; and the items on your agenda.

The report on the October 2000 session of the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination (ACC) states:

"Recognizing that ACC may from time to time enter into exchanges with the representatives of staff bodies, HLCM is responsible for maintaining ongoing dialogue with staff representatives on concerns of a system-wide nature."

You chose, at your first session, to discuss the nature of the arrangements in camera, ironically, without any consultations with your dialogue partners. We chose to be patient.

We are now invited to consultations to provide input to your further work. Put into a historical perspective, this brings us back to the middle of the last century, when FICSA representatives had to wait in front of the meeting room for somebody to let them in, just to deliver a statement to CCAQ and leave. It appears that history stutters: in 1952, FICSA was refused the right to be consulted although the majority of CCAQ members felt that it should be allowed to submit written statements or be granted a hearing before it; in 2000, the staff representative bodies were refused the right to attend your entire session although, we understand, the majority of your Committee was in favor of a more liberal setting.

From 1969 onwards, FICSA attended all CCAQ sessions and contributed to the work as an accepted and respected discussion partner. In the early 1990’s, after a long battle fought together by the representatives of administrations and staff, ICSC stopped the practice of private or executive sessions.

And, in the Framework for Human Resources Management (Report of ICSC to the United Nations General Assembly - A/55/30, Annex II), ICSC has come to define the role of staff representatives as

"full involvement in and consultation on all matters relating to personnel/human resources practices and policies" and to establish the principle that

Through Resolution 55/223, the United Nations General Assembly, in turn,

Our input to your work on a particular agenda item – our influence on a particular decision – will be insignificant in the current setting if you decide to depart substantially or radically from the course proposed in the preparatory documentation.

In short, the current arrangement is not satisfactory. It is no good for us; it is no good for you; it is no good for the organizations we all serve.

As additional food for thought, we would reiterate what we – FICSA and CCISUA jointly – stated the following to the October 2000 session of ACC:

You, for your part, have to learn to work together, both as a group within HLCM and as one of the wheels of the common system machinery. We, for our part, have to learn to work with you, on both counts. The challenge is great for both of us.

We would not like to learn by trial and error and, therefore, would appreciate a dialogue on how best to contribute to the "coherent, efficient and cost-effective management across the United Nations system of organizations" mentioned in your terms of reference.

Whilst you are "authorized to take decisions on behalf of the Executive Heads" (your terms of reference), it is the prerogative of the Executive Heads to amend the Staff Rules. Whilst HLCM is "composed of the most senior administrative managers of each ACC member organization" (your terms of reference), we note that in many organizations, the Human Resources Management Director reports directly to the Executive Head. Whilst there is an Ad Hoc Human Resources Network which usually meets prior to ICSC sessions, the ACC machinery is expected to make extensive use of, for instance, task forces.

Let us take some examples:

1. Article 1(1) of the Maternity Protection Recommendation, 2000, adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on 30 May 2000 provides that:

   "Members should endeavour to extend the period of maternity leave [...] to at least 18 weeks."

   FICSA considers that the United Nations common system must be a role model for the world community and must adjust the Staff Rules. To whom should we address the issue?

2. The same applies to the implementation, at the level of the Organizations and as far as relevant, of the ILO Code of Practice on HIV/AIDS and the World of Work. Can the currently operating Task Force on HIV/AIDS in the UN Workplace take the initiative to consider some policy issues such as the establishment of a joint HIV/AIDS Committee? To whom should we address the issue?

3. Some Organizations, but not others, have set up a family visit travel system; occasional recuperation breaks; rules to prevent excessive recourse to overtime and to provide compensation for professional staff; rules to ensure that family and child support obligations are respected; etc. To whom should we address such issues?

4. In France, the legal working week will be further reduced from 39 to 35 hours, whereas the organizations having staff in Paris or Lyons have maintained a 40-hour schedule. At some point in time, a decision on policy (and possibly the transitional measures) will have to be taken - preferably by all organizations concerned and not just the lead agency. If FICSA were to take the initiative, to whom should we address it?

   To wrap up, we do not want to either embarrass or be embarrassed. We seek efficiency for both what you are doing and what we are doing.

FICSA currently has 27 full members from 28 Organizations. In a few days, we shall be 28. Nineteen Federations of United Nations Staff Associations (FUNSA), which unite the staff in field duty stations, have joined FICSA with observer status. Whilst the focus remains on the United Nations common system, FICSA is also outward looking and has five associate members, namely two European scientific institutions, two international agricultural research centers and one humanitarian organization. Finally, 21 entities have consultative status.

FICSA’s expenses (around one million Swiss francs a year) are covered essentially by the full members. Despite the numbers, we have to admit that it is becoming increasingly difficult to ensure FICSA’s continued existence.

Like the trade union movement in the outside world, we are suffering from disaffection to collective interests. This is aggravated in the United Nations system by the current trends and pressures for more output, more accountability, more delegation of authority... and less job security. To be a staff representative – and even a staff member with an active interest for staff matters and ready to contribute on occasion to the common good – is increasingly becoming a challenge. To mention just one particular problem, we had to experience some difficulties in the course of the year with the release of the FICSA Vice-President, for instance to attend the Ad Hoc Inter-Agency Meeting on Security that took place in her own Organization.

The challenge is also on the Organizations for, to be successful, in particular in the ongoing reform processes, they need a strong and capable staff leadership.

FICSA offers in this respect a stable workforce that is able to assist the member associations and unions – and most of the time also, indirectly, the Organizations and the common system as a whole – in many ways.

The Organizations, for their part, provide support in the form of the full-time release of the FICSA President and General Secretary.

In view of the current crisis, which unfortunately promises to be lasting, and the ever-increasing tasks ahead of us, particularly the burgeoning calendar of ICSC events, this is no longer enough.

Security and Safety of Staff

FICSA has written twice in recent months to all Executive Heads to urge them to find an agreement on the formula for sharing the costs of the central security management system. FICSA can only reiterate that request to you today.

FICSA participated in the Ad Hoc Inter-Agency Meeting on Security that took place in May in UNESCO. We share all conclusions and recommendations. We were not invited to the HLCM Task Force.

Whilst we regret that it has not been possible, apparently, to produce the final draft of the revised Field Security Handbook, we would urge immediate implementation of its provisions, particularly as regards the security measures for locally-recruited staff.

Finally, as regards the letter signed on behalf of UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF and WFP, we are confronted with a paper that raises too many issues and seems based on erroneous premises. Therefore, it does not appear meaningful to provide comments a priori.

Simplification in Procedures, Processes and Entitlements

FICSA takes note of paragraphs 4 of document HLCM/2001/R.2. We regret that, unless the arrangements for this meeting are changed, we shall miss the discussion "in respect of initiatives being taken by different organizations individually or jointly in given locations". We will not only miss an opportunity to contribute to the debate, where warranted, but we will also be handicapped in our future contributions.

Sustainable Employability

FICSA questions the rhetoric that underpins the current discussions on the concept of sustainable employability. In particular, it is not correct to put the emphasis on the "‘new’ employment models" (read: time-limited commitment to the raison d’être of the intergovernmental organizations of the United Nations common system).

FICSA supports, however, the measures, particularly in terms of training, that ensure that staff are able to make a positive and recognized contribution to the Organization throughout their career, short or long. It also supports the measures that ensure that staff are able to find employment elsewhere easily if they wish to move on or if they are forced to do so by events such as "downsizing" or "reprofiling".

In short, FICSA considers that the perspective must be changed.

As regards the "way forward" (paragraph 5.3 of document HLCM/2001/R.2), we note that the proposed decisions are very modest in scope. But perhaps a slow start is not totally unwarranted. We have been taken somewhat by surprise by the second proposal and did not have time to consult the membership. It appears, however, that at a time when many organizations are struggling with the problem of "long-term short-term staff", the priority should be given to internal candidates. But, at the very least, candidates from other UN system organizations should be given priority over outsiders.

[End]