Decision in case 736/2019/PB on how EUCAP Somalia^[1] calculated work-experience in a recruitment procedure^[2]

Background to the complaint^[3]

1. The complainant applied for an international contracted post as ‘mission security analyst’ in an EUCAP Somalia Mission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Mission’ or ‘EUCAP Somalia’). Following a job interview that went very well, the Mission asked the complainant to submit documents to allow it to determine the precise duration of her work experience. Following a somewhat lengthy and complex assessment, the Mission informed the complainant that the duration of her relevant and documented work experience did not correspond to the 5 years required in the vacancy notice. It therefore could not offer her the job.

2. The process leading to this conclusion led the complainant to complain to the European Ombudsman. She criticised the length of the process and what she felt to be poor communication by the Mission. She claimed that the Mission should properly inform her about how it had calculated her work experience.

The inquiry

3. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry, asking the European External Actions Service (EEAS) to provide information that would allow the complainant to understand how her work experience had been calculated.

4.  The EEAS, following a thorough consultation with EUCAP Somalia, submitted a detailed reply, and subsequently a follow-up reply in response to additional questions by the Ombudsman.

5. The Ombudsman sent the EEAS’ replies to the complainant to give her the opportunity to submit her comments. The complainant did not make any comments.

The calculation of work experience

6. The EEAS provided a detailed account of the applicable rules, contained in its Grading Guidelines. The EEAS described these Grading Guidelines as extremely important, noting that the kind of post here concerned is financed directly out of the EU’s general budget. It emphasised that, while assessments of previous work experience are always done on an individual basis, the Guidelines leave only little margin for interpretation and deviation from the guiding principles and rules.

7. Examples of these rules include for instance the rule that work experience which is only partly relevant will be counted at 50%, or that non-remunerated professional experience can only be considered relevant when it is accredited by an established and recognised organisation. Similarly, precise rules exist for several other situations, such as work experience acquired on a half-time basis, work carried out on a pro-rata basis, or work that was overlapping in time.

8. The EEAS then explained the process for calculating the complainant’s work experience.

9. Following the job interview, the Mission asked the complainant to submit proof of her work experience. The minimum number of years required was five. In her application, the complainant indicated that she had seven years of work experience through almost twenty different employment relationships over a period of eight years. 

10. The Missions’ Human Resources Unit concluded that the complainant had 5,14 years of relevant work experience. This had been verified by the Mission’ Financial Verifier. In line with the applicable rules, the Mission’s Human Resources Unit made a corresponding proposal for the complainant’s grading to the European Commission which has the prerogative to approve (or reject) the final grading.

11. In the following weeks, the complainant’s work experience was recalculated several times. The complainant had submitted new documents and related exchanges took place between the Mission and the European Commission. In addition, the Mission’s Financial Verifier had in the meantime been replaced. The Mission revised its calculation of the complainant’s work experience to 2,4 years. Its Human Resources Unit contacted the complainant a new for proof of work experience. She sent such proof, and the Mission revised the estimation of her work experience to 4,61 years.

12. On a confidential basis, the EEAS submitted to the Ombudsman the detailed table that had been used internally by the Mission to calculate the complainant’s work experience. It contains columns with information such as dates, number of days worked, the name of the organisation worked for, and an assessment of whether adequate proof had been provided[4].

13. In its reply to the Ombudsman, the EEAS explained the assessment made by the Mission in some detail. It for instance listed the work experience that was counted as 100% and the experience that was counted as 50%. It also listed the experience for which the complainant had not been able to provide proof, which included some months of work at a national human rights institution and a similar period of work at a national ministry.

14. The EEAS commented that it was evident that “the internal grading process had been extremely cumbersome”. It said that the complainant had submitted incomplete supporting documentation, which she supplemented only following numerous requests by the Mission’s Human Resources Unit. The process had also been delayed by the fact that the complainant’s explanations had not always clearly shown whether the work experience in question had been part-time or full-time, and the Mission thus had to ask the complainant for clarifications. The EEAS referred to the precise rules in the above-mentioned Grading Guidelines, aimed at ensuring coherent grading decisions.

15. The EEAS emphasised that the Mission had expressly informed the complainant that she had to provide precise proof of her work experience, and that EUCAP Somalia maintained a proactive, positive, helpful and encouraging tone and spirit in the communication.

16. As mentioned above, the EEAS’ reply was sent to the complainant, who did not make any comments.

The Ombudsman's assessment

On how the Mission communicated with the complainant

17. The Mission was from the outset very positive about the complainant’s application. When it proceeded to assess and calculate the complainant’s work experience, it clearly communicated to her that it was seeking to identify documentation to prove relevant work experience. It was therefore quite clear that the Mission was trying to help the complainant to provide evidence of what she claimed to be relevant work experience.

On the length and complexity of the process

18. The EEAS has fully acknowledged that this was a cumbersome process. With regard to the implications that this had for the complainant specifically, the Ombudsman notes that the Mission informed the complainant that it could not recruit her if she did not have the required work experience, and that documentation for this had to be submitted. The Ombudsman also notes that the nature of the Mission’s detailed and indeed long assessment of the complainant’s work experience was fundamentally constructive and positive for her: From a revised assessment that gave her 2,4 years of work experience, the Mission went to great lengths to request and assess further documentation, ultimately calculating her relevant and documented work experience to almost 5 years.

19. In light of the above, the Ombudsman does not find that the Mission or the EEAS acted with maladministration towards the complainant. The Ombudsman will, however, make suggestions to improve the procedure for determining the relevance and length of relevant work experience.

20. Finally, whilst the object of the present case was about the length of the procedure and how the Mission communicated with the complainant regarding the calculation of her work experience, the Ombudsman finds it appropriate to put on record that the Mission’s conclusion that she did not have the required work experience appears to be sound and void of any manifest error of assessment.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration in how EUCAP Somalia Mission and the EEAS dealt with the complainant.

The complainant and the EEAS will be informed of this decision.

Suggestion for improvement

The Ombudsman finds it positive that the EEAS uses a detailed set of Grading Principles for its recruitment and grading of new staff. The Ombudsman has also noted the usefulness of the internal checks in Mission’s recruitments, which in this case appear to have worked well.

The facts of the present case - including the EEAS’ own acknowledgement that the process was “extremely cumbersome” - do, however, give reason to consider possible improvements.

The Ombudsman therefore suggests that the civilian crises management missions in similar procedures

a. informs potential applicants better about the basic rules of its Grading Guidelines (for instance in the form of an FAQ list);

b. asks applicants themselves to fill in a table with their required work experience, encouraging them to indicate their own assessment on the relevance and length of the experience;

c. consider introducing a form that technically requires the applicant to upload, for each work experience claimed to be relevant, one or more documents by way of proof of work experience, without which the form cannot be submitted (this is no guarantee of accuracy, but emphasises this important aspect of the recruitment procedure).

The EEAS may already be working on introducing such improvements. The Ombudsman would in that case like to be duly informed.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 13/07/2020

 

[1] EUCAP Somalia Mission is a civilian crises management mission established by the Council of the European Union. It employs international and local contracted staff and engages seconded nationals of EU Member States and contributing third countries. The recruitment procedure is conducted by the Mission, in some cases, with the participation of the EEAS. The international contracted posts are published on the website of the EEAS.

[2] The present version of the Ombudsman’s decision contains editorial improvements suggested by the EEAS following the publication of the first version.

[3] To protect personal data, the decision avoids referring to specifics that could allow the complainant to be identified.

[4] The Ombudsman noted a minor discrepancy in the presentation of the total work experience. On the basis of the EEAS’ own assessment of what work experience was relevant, the calculation should have shown 4 years, 7 months and 9 days.