22 May 2002

FICSA representatives at the session were Janice Albert, General Secretary, Leslie Ewart, Information Officer and Bob Weisell, Chairman of the FICSA Standing Committee on Professional Salaries and Allowances. Several officers of the Rome-based staff associations and union joined the delegation as observers to listen to the discussions on the London salary survey and the review of the pay and benefits system and to share their views with FICSA representatives: Margaret Eldon, General Secretary, FAO/WFP-UGSS; and Kristin Kolhus, President, FAO/WFP-APS. Maurizio Di Nigris, former FAO/WFP-APS member, provided his expertise on professional salary issues to the delegation.

Session documents are posted at: icsc.un.org

The first one and a half days were devoted to the London salary survey. Two members of the local salary survey committee (LSSC) were present at the session. Both staff and administration representatives reported favourably on the conduct of the survey, particularly regarding the spirit of cooperation between the ICSC secretariat and the LSSC. The survey yielded an increase of 4.37% for the local UN system staff working in London. The increase includes an interim adjustment of 3.1 per cent.

Attention was drawn to the difficulty of finding the 20 employers required by the methodology. The salary survey team contacted more than 140 employers to obtain the requisite 20.

FICSA made the following intervention:

"FICSA has noted that there were some points made during the discussion of the London survey which are recurring themes and will be raised when the methodology is reviewed next year.

"FICSA would like to stress the importance of respecting the Flemming principle which is that GS salaries are set in line with the best prevailing rates in the local market.

"We believe that there is a risk that the Commission may further deviate from this principle in the sense that other criteria are being mentioned. We note with concern the notion that the sample be a cross section of types of employers rather than employers offering the best prevailing rates.

"The methodology must be flexible enough to be applied in the different economies of the various duty stations.

"We believe that the insistence on a cross section of employers will only add to the difficulties of finding employers to participate in the surveys."

The rest of the week and the first two days of the following week were devoted to the review of the pay and benefits system. Ten papers were presented by the ICSC secretariat, plus an additional number of presentations by consultants and ICSC secretariat staff. Commissioners expressed dismay at the 700+ pages they were expected to read and analyze in such a short period of time. FICSA submitted a conference room paper (ICSC/54/CRP.5), which was distributed at the session, and to its member associations and unions on Tuesday, 23 April.

The General Secretary of FICSA welcomed a number of proposals contained in the report of the Working Group. She recognized that many details of the proposed reform had not been formulated yet, but liked to highlight some issues that FICSA believed were of particular importance to staff, as well as identify some crucial gaps in the proposals.

FICSA welcomed the proposal to update the Master Standard for job classification. Since the current standards were created, new professions and new technologies had emerged. Furthermore, changing styles of work implied that very hierarchical structures were less conducive to efficient work than in the past. FICSA was of the view that job evaluation should provide an objective basis for determining individual staff member’s pay levels; help ensure equal pay for work of equal value; and enable meaningful salary comparisons between the common system and the comparator. FICSA expressed concern about the proposals to eliminate experience as a factor in the Master Standard, and strongly disagreed with the view that seniority in post had little value.

FICSA shared the view that improvements in management were needed. The current practice of requiring technical staff with little or no managerial experience to take on additional administrative duties in order to advance could diminish the quality of both technical and administrative work. The dual career ladder would allow staff to focus on the work they were most qualified to do and create new career paths.

The proposals to improve management focused primarily on senior management. While recognizing the need for new managers with fresh ideas, FICSA believed more attention should be given to improving the performance of the current managers and supervisors. Opportunities for obtaining and demonstrating managerial skills should also be given to professionals at the lower grades and to General Service staff.

FICSA appreciated the recognition given to the need for career development and staff growth but noted that there were no specific proposals about the means by which competencies will be enhanced. FICSA also supported the development of recognition and reward systems for staff in every category at all duty stations, based on an effective performance appraisal system. The award of bonuses should be used to recognize performance, provided they were not the sole component of pay progression.

Pay equity was a long-established principle of civil services and the United Nations system had been based on that principle since its creation. It was intended to foster teamwork and cooperation among employees of many different nationalities and to ensure that the organizations were able to secure the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. FICSA noted that salaries in broadbanded pay systems were individual and largely discretionary. Contrary to simplifying the pay system, it appeared that salary administration would be more complex if such a system were adopted leading to an additional workload for line managers. FICSA noted that some common system organizations had more generous and stable funding, enabling them to offer more competitive salaries for the same jobs. This could lead to competition among organizations for staff. While FICSA respected the desire for reform, it reserved its full support of the new framework until all outstanding issues were addressed.

The Commission met in an Open-Ended Working Group to discuss the proposals to reform the pay and benefits system. Commissioners raised a very considerable number of questions on the various aspects of the proposed pay reform. In most instances, their questions were the same as those that FICSA had intended to raise. (FICSA had distributed those questions to the Executive Committee members prior to the session.)

Some Commissioners expressed support for seniority and experience, and adequate opportunities for a career in the international civil service. Several Commissioners saw reason in maintaining the current system of grades and steps, while a few others were open to the proposals for eliminating the present grade system. They questioned whether organizations had effective performance appraisal systems which were seen by them to be essential to the new type of system being proposed, and solicited the views of FICSA and CCISUA on how staff morale, performance and effectiveness might be affected by the proposed reforms.

On the subject of recruitment and retention difficulties raised by the administrations, Commissioners were adamant that evidence should be provided before options to address the ‘alleged’ problems could be considered. This request for evidence was not new; it had been made several years ago in the context of the need expressed by staff and administrations to increase salaries for staff in the Professional and higher categories. Administrations unfortunately had not complied with the request at that time, but said at the current session that they would make the data available to the CEB secretariat. WHO and UNIDO administrations reported that they already compile data on recruitment and retention; other administrations present at the session were silent. The question of competitiveness of UN system salaries was given a good going over, with some Commissioners making the point that compensation packages of other ‘comparators’ should be compared ‘properly and accurately’ to assess whether UN salaries were competitive. There was general agreement that consideration of the Noblemaire principle should be kept separate from the review of the pay system because it was a lengthy and complex subject that required an in-depth review.

The informal discussions were meant to have finished on Friday, 26 April, but did not end until Tuesday, 31 April, even though several papers had not been discussed. In formal session, the Commission took note of the document ICSC/54/R.3, ‘Report of the working group on the review of the pay and benefits system’, and spent a great deal of time discussing procedural issues and identifying the information they wanted for the next session in July. Thus, no decisions were taken on the proposals, pending the type and quality of information and analysis that they receive for the next session. The ICSC secretariat will have only 6 weeks to get its homework done to the Commissioners’ satisfaction.

FICSA has prepared some briefing material on the pay and benefits review, which will be distributed to member associations and unions, and posted on its website. It consists of a Powerpoint presentation for staff associations and unions to use for discussing the issue with staff. Administrations agreed that there was a need to consult with staff representatives and staff on the review. It would be useful for FICSA to be kept informed about consultations at the organizational level, and about questions raised by staff.

ICSC decided to take up the issue of contractual arrangements because there had been "an inflation" in the types of contract in the UN system and the UN General Assembly wished to see a more limited choice. ICSC reported that there were 15 types of contractual arrangement, including 4 types of permanent contract.

FICSA stated that it appreciated the effort to clarify the situation regarding contracts. At present, there was ambiguity in the terminology and a lack of transparency that was harmful to staff, not only the individuals concerned, but also their colleagues. If staff were to plan their work and career, they needed to know which functions were viewed as permanent and which were temporary by their governing bodies.

With regard to short-term contracts, FICSA stated that the proliferation of short-term contracts created a great deal of paperwork and delays in work, and placed a burden on team and line managers because they didn’t have reliability and continuity within their team. Managers didn’t want a patchwork of consultants and other short-term staff. That type of arrangement had an impact on the ability to work effectively because the short-term staff came and went all the time. It also created tension among staff because some had better conditions than others, although they did the same work.

Regarding permanent contracts, FICSA stated that it regretted the trend to reduce the number of permanent appointments. The permanent contract offered a competitive advantage over other employers in recruiting and retaining the best people and should be maintained.

Commissioners raised many questions about the document and expressed concern about the accuracy of the data presented. The organizations were similarly unhappy about a number of inaccuracies. There was a need to come up with conclusions that were statistically reliable.

The Commission decided to call for a new document for its July session. The ICSC secretariat and the organizations will work together to provide more accurate information and a more thorough analysis.

As part of the work/family agenda, some of the organizations have begun to offer paternity leave. However, provisions for paternity leave vary according to each organization, from 5 days to 8 weeks. ICSC reviewed the provisions and asked the Commission to consider whether they should be maintained as they are, or should be standardized.

FICSA agreed with CEB that paternity leave was an important element of reforming organizational life, and supported best practice – at present eight weeks paid leave. There had been a dramatic increase in the dual career family, and fathers should have the opportunity to bond with their newborns. The ability to offer paternity leave made an organization more competitive in attracting and retaining staff. It should be borne in mind that international staff live away from their social support network of family members and friends. Moreover, staff working in non-family duty stations should be given ample time to join their spouse and to assist the mother when a child is born. FICSA added that both parents would also be appreciative of more opportunities for part-time work arrangements.

The Commissioners reached consensus that paternity leave should be introduced, that there should be a uniform policy, and that it should be of reasonable duration. ICSC decided to present another paper to its July session which will contain detailed proposals on the provisions of paternity leave, including eligibility, possible combination of paternity and maternity leave, possible reduction of paternity leave if the spouse is a staff member, when paternity should be granted, whether paternity leave can be taken at once or at different times, etc. (See R.11, para. 27 for a complete list of the provisions.)

Commissioners were asked to consider the adjustment of levels of hazard pay and respond to the request by UNSECOORD to review the possibility of special criteria for transitional administration missions.

FICSA stated that it supported the proposals to increase hazard pay for international and local staff. It also stated that it represented UNRWA staff, and drew the Commission’s attention to the fact that some UNRWA staff received hazard pay while others did not. FICSA appealed for funds for hazard pay for UNRWA Area Staff, who were on the front line delivering services to refugees in the harshest circumstances. Local staff reported to duty every day including during crises, even when international staff did not. FICSA submitted a letter signed by the Chairmen of three Area Staff Unions in the West Bank and Gaza, which was distributed to the Commissioners, along with a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Commission by the FICSA President. CCISUA supported the FICSA statement.

Many of the Commissioners expressed gratitude to FICSA for informing them about this "shocking situation", without which they would not have been informed. Another Commissioner saw this information as proof of the importance of the presence of staff at the sessions and of their ability to "enlighten" the Commissioners. Another acknowledged the "value of staff representatives". One Commissioner said that the distinctions made between local and international staff were a form of discrimination and that the compensation framework should be consistent. The Chairman of the Commission appealed to UNRWA to respect the contractual obligations to Area Staff.

The Commission considered that hazard pay should be paid to all locally recruited staff. The Commission felt that the Commissioner General had the authority to take a decision according to the mandate given to him by the General Assembly.

ICSC decided to:

• Reiterate its commitment to the principle of hazard pay and expressed its appreciation for the dedication and commitment of all those working in hazardous conditions;
• Reconfirm that the present criteria for the granting of hazad pay should remain unchanged;
• Maintain the level of hazard pay for international staff at its current rate of US$ 1,000 per month;
• Request its secretariat to solicit the views of the organizations with regard to an increase in the levels of hazard pay for locally recruited staff and submit recommendations to its 55^th session.

ICSC reviewed the mission subsistence allowance in terms of how it is applied in various organizations and the relationship between MSA and DSA. In 1998, ICSC requested the organizations to improve coordination of MSA practices. The background document presented an overview of how MSA or similar arrangements are applied to staff assigned on temporary mission service. Only three organizations (WHO, UNDP and UNHCR) responded to the Commission’s request for information. It should be noted that only the UN uses MSA, as it was introduced to cover the unique needs of peacekeeping operations; other organizations use the MSA as a base for their own allowances.

FICSA called on all organizations to coordinate their practices to guarantee equal treatment of staff.

The Commission decided that the ICSC secretariat should convene a meeting with the organizations to harmonize MSA practices.

The Commission took note of the document, which proposed an increase of 5.6% in the base/floor scale effective 1 March 2003, on a no-loss/no-gain basis, pending the review of methodological issues. They will discuss it again at the July session.

FICSA supported the increase and called for raising the margin at least to its acceptable midpoint of 115.

The Commission endorsed the recommendations presented by the ICSC secretariat:

• The children’s allowance should remain at the current level of US$1936;
• The secondary dependant’s allowance should also remain at the current level of US$693;
• The current list of duty stations where the allowances are payable in local currency should be maintained;
• The dependency allowance should be reduced by the amount of any direct payments received by staff from a Government in respect of dependants.

At this point in the session, the Commission returned its attention to the review of the pay and benefits system to discuss a paper that had not been included in their earlier considerations.

After a Powerpoint presentation, the Commissioners had a brief period to ask questions about the functioning and rationale behind these three bonuses. They again asked for quantitative data on recruitment and retention difficulties from the organizations.

FICSA stated that it was premature to consider reward strategies. ICSC should wait until Tier I issues were completed.