Jun 16, 2013 - context, Staff was informed by Management that the Secretary General's Bulletin ... travel rules, downsiz
Background information on Joint communiqué from the UN staff unions Sunday 16 June 2013
The Staff Management Coordination Committee (SMC) was established in line with Article 8 of the United Nations Staff Rules and Regulations (SRR), which stipulates: “The Secretary-General shall establish and maintain continuous contact and communication with the staff in order to ensure effective participation of the staff in identifying, examining and resolving issues relating to staff welfare, including conditions of work, general conditions of life and other human resources policies”. The SMC is composed of the UN Management and the leadership of the UN Staff Unions and Associations. Its members interact regularly through video conferences and physically at least once a year for direct negotiations. Management delegation is led by the UN Under Secretary General on Management, assisted by the Assistant Secretary General for Office of Human Resources Management, and supported by the various Directors of Administration and Chiefs of Human Resources of the UN institutions. The SMC discusses and negotiates among other important issues, SRR and various guidelines and administrative circulars governing the UN activities, conditions of service and welfare of staff. The 2013 SMC II was scheduled to take place in Mexico from 12 to 20 June. In this context, Staff was informed by Management that the Secretary General’s Bulletin (ST/SGB/2011/6) on SMC, which was promulgated in September 2011 after four years of hard negotiations and review by the Office of the Legal Adviser (OLA), would be amended upon request from the General Assembly as interpreted by Management to be an advisory and not a negotiation organ despite the recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) to strengthen the negotiation mechanisms embedded in SMC as per the UN Charter, International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions and in conformity with SRR Article 8. Staff did not agree to the proposed revision to the SGB as it clearly undermines staffmanagement relations, and read at the opening of SMC II a communiqué requesting withdrawal of the proposed changes and reaffirmation of the current SMC process. Management refused and insisted in maintaining their proposed changes. To show their good faith and readiness for compromise to move the SMC process forward, Staff then proposed on Friday 14 June afternoon to prepare a draft SGB counter-proposal over the weekend to be submitted to Management on Sunday morning for comprehensive discussion at the first session of Monday 18 June before tackling the other issues. Management did not accept the proposal. Staff came out after lengthy discussions with a second proposal to adjourn the proposed revisions to the SGB for one year, in order to enable examination and agreement on the other items on the agenda. Management rejected this additional offer insisting intensely to promulgate the proposed revisions to the SGB soonest without staff input.
Staff insisted the SGB be discussed on Monday; nonetheless Management indicated that they would only deal with other issues on the agenda and review the proposed changes to the SGB before the end of SMC II, time permitting. This was not acceptable to Staff as the SGB is the foundation of any discussions and action to be agreed upon in SMC. Management decided they would not discuss the matter further
and requested the President of SMC to close the meeting immediately. The SMC President decided to acquiesce to the request of Management, stating she saw no further basis of proceeding, and closed the session without exhausting the items for discussion, having a proper closure of the meeting or adopting the SMC II report. Staff notes that instead of using the SMC as a forum for “continuous contact and communication”, the actions by Management demonstrate the desire instead to use this year’s SMC II to impose its views and use Staff as a rubber stamp to its unpopular decisions. Staff are greatly disappointed by the decision of Management to cease discussions and request termination of SMC II. Resources of both the Organization and the Staff Unions and Associations were used to fund travel to SMC II without any tangible outcome. Staff have been denied their right to be consulted on key issues of concern to all serving the Organization: the internal administration of justice system, mobility, travel rules, downsizing, Field Service review, etc. It equally created uncertainties with regard to the continuing mandate of the existing staff-management Working Groups. Staff reiterate their support for a consultation framework based on consensus and call for a special SMC in order for their right to be consulted on the pending agenda items be respected, and urge Management not to implement any decisions, including the proposed revisions to the current ST/SGB/2011/6 on SMC, until such time.
Attached as Annex the Joint Communiqué from Staff Unions
Joint communiqué from the staff unions present at SMC 2 on the Management’s proposed changes to the staff management negotiation machinery Thursday 13 June 2013 The staff unions participating in SMC II take note of the proposals made by management to modify ST/SGB/2011/6 on Staff Management Committee. The unions believe that ST/SGB/2011/6 represents a process for good faith negotiations and builds significantly on the previous SMCC. The SGB reflects several years of joint development by staff unions and the present management team. Furthermore, the draft was refined between 2008 and 2009 and underwent a rigorous review process. Prior to promulgation the draft was reviewed by the Office of Legal Affairs and judged to be both legal and consistent with existing legislation. However, while unions welcomed the promulgation of ST/SGB/2011/6, they still note that it remains below the minimum ILO fundamental rights present in national legislative systems. ST/SGB/2011/6also falls even further below the newly promulgated Standards of Conduct. Nevertheless the first meeting of SMC,held last year was a strong example of constructive good faith engagement between staff and management made in a process of trust and transparency. The Secretary-‐General himself expressed satisfaction on numerous occasions, both to staff and to member states. This served to validate the agreement by staff and management to move from SMCC to SMC. The same transition also ensured that conditions were met that could bring all unions to the table. The unions believe that the management representatives who sit across the table should have the confidence of the Secretary-‐General and a mandate to negotiate. ST/SGB/2011/6 is key to this. The unions are greatly concerned that management’s proposal is a unilateral withdrawal of organizational rights. Unions note that the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, through Order No 83 (NY 2011), emphasized the need of the Organization to conform its practices to the relevant rules of international law, including Article 23.4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly recognizing the right to freedom of association and meaningful exercise of that right. The General Assembly further recognized the right to organize and collective bargaining as core elements of ILO fundamental rights. The unions therefore reaffirm their belief that the current SGB is in line with Staff Rules and Regulations, express their confidence in the current SMC process and reject the proposed changes. The unions call on management to withdraw the proposed changes and send a clear message to the General Assembly that it supports the current SMC process as key to ensuring constructive staff-‐management dialogue, in line with the Staff Rules and Regulations and General Assembly resolutions. The unions believe that withdrawal of the proposed changes and reaffirmation of the current SMC process are required for an agreed outcome of SMC II.
