TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Oct10/03)
4 October 2010
Third World Network

Dear Friends,

Please see below a news story on the statement of WIPO's Staff Association delivered during the WIPO Assemblies that has charged WIPO's top-level management of improper practices and cronyism.

Regards

Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network

WIPO: Charges of Improper Practices, Cronyism Levelled at Top-Level Staff

Geneva, 1 Oct (TWN) -- The Staff Association of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has accused the organization's top-level administration of improper staff practices ranging from "witch-hunting" by the senior management to favouritism and cronyism in recruitments and promotions within the organization.

The accusations came in a rather outspoken and unprecedented statement that was delivered by the Association during the forty-eighth series of meetings of the WIPO Assemblies, which ended on 29 September.

The statement was delivered by the President of the Staff Council, Mr. Azzeddine Moncef Kateb, on behalf of the WIPO Staff Association.

The Association's statement, delivered at the WIPO Coordination Committee (CC) on 27 September, touched upon a range of issues including "witch-hunting" by the senior management, non-transparent appointments, favouritism and cronisym in recruitment and promotion practices, and marginalisation of the Staff Association.

The statement also "regretfully" informed Member States of WIPO that "during our Staff Assemblies this year, allegations of racism, discrimination, degrading treatment and obstructions of justice [were] raised against officials in high places".

Some Members of the Coordination Committee noted that the Association's allegations were serious but at this stage, unsubstantiated. Others said that the allegations were many, and since the statement had not been distributed in advance, it was premature to discuss the allegations highlighted in the statement.

Member States also pointed to the need for the statement to be distributed, and for the WIPO Director-General, Mr. Francis Gurry, to have sufficient time to respond to the allegations, as well as to allow WIPO's internal processes to deal with many of the allegations. Mr. Gurry of Australia replaced the previous incumbent, Dr. Kamil Idris of Sudan, in 2008.

Several Member States also stressed that the Association's statement revealed systemic issues that needed to be addressed in subsequent meetings of the Committee.

The Committee finally concluded that the statement by the President of the Staff Association be distributed; that the Secretariat would provide its written response; that the Committee would give the WIPO management an opportunity to resolve issues internally; and, if any issues remained unresolved, there was the possibility of convening a meeting of the Committee in the first half of 2011.

The WIPO Staff Association currently has 663 members, representing 63% of WIPO posts of the current financial year. The Staff Council is a statutory representive body of the Association charged with defending staff interests in dealings with WIPO's top-level administration, in particular, the Director-General.

The Association's statement referred to the marginalisation of certain staff that worked in cooperation with the senior management under the leadership of former Director-General Dr. Kamil Idris.

The statement recalled that in the second half of 2008, it was solemnly informed that there would be no "witch hunting and settling of old scores". Yet, it added that the process of strategic realignments has been conducted "without any involvements of the Staff Association" and "in a manner which has favoured certain colleagues and punished and humiliated others for no justifiable reasons".

It added that "divisions were downgraded to section, sections and units were closed in an arbitrary and high-handed manner and the incumbents were assigned to inferior tasks and responsibilities and in one instance, a successful and useful program was discontinued and, contrary to a decision of Member States, has not yet been reinstated".

On the recruitment process, post-reclassification and promotions, the statement said: "Some recent recruitments were carried out disregarding the most basic rules laid down in job vacancy announcements... This practice of favouritism and cronyism is unacceptable and is promoting a deep sense of unease among staff at the current time."

It further said that "Other recruitments are political ones that contravene the most basic principles of international public service, particularly that of its independence". It stressed the need for resources not to be misused or used for personal ends.

It communicated its concern about the creation of new posts, some of which seem to have been organized without a prior selection process and posts freed up by moving staff members only to be filled up by other colleagues of the same grade but without a selection procedure, as well as of "downgradings", affecting the duties or grades of officials.

The Association's statement also spoke of the "deep sense of humiliation" and "unjustified harm" to the affected colleagues caused by such practices. It further said that since November 2009, the "Administration has stopped distributing information circulars about staff movements and the recruitment of consultants, as well as the results of the various posts advertised with a selection procedure". The Administration attributed the change to the fact that circulars on the sector-by-sector reorganizations were being prepared and that the usual procedure would soon be resumed, it added.

The statement said that it "disapproves" of the situation, as "it gives free rein to rumors", and deprives "those wishing to appeal of the opportunity to launch a procedure on the basis of the announced result". It added that the lack of communication on the selection process in the professional and higher categories makes it impossible to monitor statistics about respect for the principle of equitable geographical distribution by which the selection procedure is bound.

The statement informed Member States that Post Classification Committee's work had progressed with no communication about the results of reclassification measures approved or the decisions to reject the submitted request, adding that the lack of transparency is "extremely damaging to the credibility of the procedure followed".

In addition, the statement notes that contrary to the instruction contained in the Staff Regulations and Rules that "the grading standards, fixing the level of duties and responsibilities and the requisite qualifications, shall be brought to the notice of the staff", those standards were never brought to the notice of staff. It added that this was a violation of the principle of equal treatment for officials, with which strict compliance is always reiterated in the judgments handed down by the ILO Administrative Tribunal. This casts doubt on the credibility of the entire post-reclassification process, the statement said.

The Statement also expressed concern with regard to the promotion and reclassification of posts. It said: "The removal of the merit-based promotion system and the promise to replace it with a scheme based on other criteria... remain pending, and poses the problem of consistency of promotions applied following the post reclassification procedures." It pointed to the lack of a sitting advisory committee and thus as a result, it was unclear which body has the last word on reclassifications. "There is currently no Office Instruction on this subject."

The Staff Association's statement revealed that 70 grievances were pending before the various organs of justice including the ILO Administrative Tribunal. It said: "This is a very high number and we must all collectively address the causes of such a high level of dissatisfaction", adding with regret that during this year's Staff Assemblies, "allegations of racism, discrimination, degrading treatment and obstructions of justice [were] raised against officials in high places. The Staff Council is willing to work hand in hand with the Administration and the member states to uproot such unfortunate practices".

The statement also expressed concern over the cases of two staff members that have been suspended for two years but whose files have not yet been submitted to the Joint Advisory Committee on disciplinary matters. It said:

" ... whatever the nature of the administrative misconduct of which they stand accused and where relevant, the sanction they might incure, two years of professional life spent wondering and being on the receiving end of accusing glances or compassion surely represents the very opposite of the notion of justice and can be devastating. In the legislation of all member countries, the key principle of innocence until proven guilty is fully enshrined, yet here it is clearly [and completely] denied or at least seriously questioned".

The recent dissemination of the procedural manual for investigations has raised concerns, the statement said. In particular, there is concern about the rights and protection of officials who may be investigated and more particularly their right to benefit from the assistance of a person of their choice and/or a legal advisor, the obligatory or optional natures of the manual and its actual date of entry into force. It said that the Staff Association would soon be forwarding its remarks on this issue to the Internal Auditor and would keep the Director-General and the Audit Committee informed.

The statement also pointed out that to date the staff had not received any information with regard to the computer violations suffered by some WIPO staff in 2008. Similarly, no information had been received about officials who received defamatory and threatening letters and e-mails during 2008. It added that it could not understand the causes of the delays surrounding the investigations. "The situation is aggravated by the fact that many colleagues have lodged similar complaints with the criminal police and these were not followed up."

[A WIPO staff member said privately that the computer security of nearly 80 staff members was compromised in 2008. An investigation was carried out with the help of external consultants, but after two years, there has been no concrete finding on the incident and many of the complainants received a communication regarding the closing of the investigation. According to the source, the closing of an investigation without a proper finding has led to suspicion that security breaches were carried out under instruction].

The Staff Association statement also raised several issues with regard to the internal justice mechanisms. It recalled that the post of mediator, one of the key mechanisms of the internal justice system, was not filled in accordance with the applicable standards, adding that the post of mediator should be filled in consultation with the Staff Association. "As this procedure was not respected, the Association cannot accept having been excluded from the procedure in force for no reason," the statement said.

The statement then pointed to the Ethics Office that was created within the Office of the Director-General and said that the head of this office has been appointed without a selection procedure, although it was a new post.

Besides the fact that the definition of ethics needs to be further clarified, the Staff Association noted its exclusion from the prior consultation procedure, and wondered why it is repeatedly marginalised.

Concerns were also raised over the treatment of long-standing temporary employees. The statement said that they had been doubly penalized since the promise to regularize their situation has repeatedly been put on hold with the system of allowances applied to them remaining unfair and inequitable.

It expressed hope that the Organization would sensibly use any opportunities offered by the freed-up posts (freed up through the Voluntary Separation Program) to regularize, as a priority, the status of as many long-standing temporary staff as possible.

The Staff Association also expressed concern over being excluded from the consultation process relating to the abolition of certain posts, the assignment of posts by sectors, programs and divisions, and the downgrading of certain posts to be filled in the context of the implications of the Voluntary Separation Program.

On the new draft Staff Regulations and Rules, the statement stressed that the principles of acquired rights and the non-retroactivity of new provisions (where these are less favourable than the current ones) must be clearly respected. Transitional provisions should also be introduced, whenever necessary, so as to respect the status of ongoing contracts and their associated rights, it added.

It further expressed concern that the draft revised Staff Regulations and Rules "appears to be leaving too much discretionary power in the hands of the Director General without adequate check and balances which would regulate abuse, if any, of those discretionary powers". It also highlighted that several key amendments to the Staff Rules are proposed to come into effect without prior approval and scrutiny of the Coordination Committee.

Following the intervention of the President of the Staff Association, the Chair of the Coordination Committee, Ms Marion Williams of Barbados, asked the Committee members to discuss the allegations raised by the President of the Staff Association. She suggested that recommendations be made on general approaches to deal with some of the issues and avoid finger-pointing.

In response to the Staff Association statement, the Director-General said that he had not had the advantage of reading the statement. He added that the Secretariat would be happy to respond to specific questions raised, as well as to furnish a detailed written reply or explanation.

Following the invitation by the Chair for Member States to voice their views, Zambia said that the most serious allegation was that about racism or racist incidences having occurred, as they go against the core values of the United Nations. It called for an investigation on the matter to ensure that if there is any iota of truth in the allegations, that the perpetrators are identified. It also stressed on the need to quickly dispose of the disciplinary cases that were pending, adding that justice delayed is justice denied.

India said that it did not want to go into the details of the many allegations. It proposed that issues that are "systemic" in nature and have an impact on how the institution runs could be grouped in generic terms and could be listed on the agenda of the forthcoming Coordination Committee session for a transparent discussion among the Member States, the Secretariat and the Staff Association.

It underlined that the perception of justice actually being done was equally important for trust building, confidence building and the smooth functioning of WIPO. It also pointed out that there was no mechanism by which the Staff Association could interact with Members and perhaps things would be smoother if such interaction was established.

Spain said that it was unfair for the Secretariat to have to answer to a statement read by the President of the Staff Association without having seen the document, adding that the statement contained issues that were complex.

It advised distributing the statement and allowing time for the Secretariat to address it, as well as time for the Member States to analyse it. The discussions on the matter could be postponed to the next Coordination Committee meeting.

While supporting Spain's statement, the United Kingdom said that it did not favour a proliferation of working groups or informal meetings, as these were internal WIPO matters which should be dealt with by the management, adding that a number of the investigations were subject to criminal proceedings and were sub-judice. It said that Member States should only intervene once the matters have gone through the criminal proceedings and the result is known.

It also said that in many organizations, when a serious reform is undertaken, some staff members feel discontent and that is usually a sign that the reforms are bearing fruit and that the organizations are being made much more effective. The presentation of the Staff Association should be viewed in this light, it added.

The Director-General proposed a delay of two months for preparing a response, adding that a considerable amount of information would need to be put together. He also indicated that no session of the Coordination Committee was scheduled for April next year and the subsequent meeting would be held in September. However, if the Chair wished to decide to convene a meeting in April, this was possible. Consultations with the group coordinators could be undertaken in order to clarify the need for an earlier meeting, he added.

The Coordination Committee agreed that the statement by the President of the Staff Association would be distributed; that the Secretariat would provide its written response; that the Coordination Committee would give the WIPO management an opportunity to resolve issues internally; and, if any remained unresolved, there was the possibility of convening a meeting of the Coordination Committee in Spring next year. +