Agora #95
22 - 26
We risk sending the message that career growth depends on being in the right agency, not doing the right work.
Climbing the Invisible Ladder:
You’ve worked hard all year. Your appraisal was glowing, your responsibilities have grown, and you’ve even taken the initiative to learn a third language. So, you might ask yourself: “Am I eligible for reclassification?”
If you’re working in the European Commission, the answer—yes or no—will likely be based on a quite transparent system, somehow defined rules, and shared expectations. But if you’re one of the thousands of Temporary or Contract Agents in an EU decentralised agency, the answer might be: “It depends.”
And that’s where the problem lies.
Why Reclassification Matters
Reclassification—the promotion of a Temporary or Contract Agent to a higher grade—may seem like a technicality, but it cuts to the core of how institutions recognise merit, manage talent, and retain expertise. It’s the quiet engine behind career progression. It reflects whether a workplace sees its staff as long-term contributors or merely as rotating cogs in a bureaucratic machine.
Yet today, reclassification practices across EU agencies are anything but unified. What determines whether a colleague moves up the ladder? Sometimes it’s experience. Sometimes it’s performance. And sometimes it’s a set of unpublished criteria known only to a handful of HR officials. This inconsistency risks undermining trust, morale, and the EU’s commitment to fair employment.
So, how do things really work behind the scenes? And what can be done to ensure the ladder is visible, stable, and open to all?
The Commission vs. the Agencies: A Tale of Two Systems
Let’s start with the benchmark: the European Commission.
There, the reclassification process for Temporary Agents and promotion process for Officials is tightly structured, governed by the Staff Regulations, and implemented with meticulous transparency. Annual exercises are organised with quotas for each grade. Staff appraisal results feed directly into promotion prospects. Comparative merit is assessed by Joint Committees composed of management and staff representatives. Appeals are possible, and even planned for, through a reserved quota of promotion places.
Now let’s look at the agencies.
Despite being part of the EU institutional family, many agencies have little in common with the Commission when it comes to reclassification. While a few agencies (like the European Chemicals Agency) have clear rules, quota-based reclassification plans, and staff consultation procedures, others operate in a more ad hoc fashion.
For example:
- Some agencies do not publish the criteria used to determine which staff are reclassified.
- Others omit any reference to comparative merit in their guidelines.
- In certain agencies, staff are notified of their promotion after decisions are finalised, with no opportunity to appeal or clarify.
- Joint Reclassification Committees may exist on paper but lack any meaningful influence.
The result? A fragmented system in which career progression can feel more like a lottery than a merit-based path.
Questions Staff Ask—And Often Can’t Answer
- “Why was my colleague reclassified with only 2 years in grade, while I’m still waiting after 4?”
- “How many posts were available for my grade this year?”
- “Can I appeal the decision?”
- “Did the Committee actually compare the merit of all eligible staff?”
These are not abstract concerns—they are real questions, raised each year by hundreds of employees across EU agencies. In a workplace that values fairness, such questions should never be met with silence.
What Works Well—and Where
Not all is gloom, however. Some agencies are quietly setting good examples.
- A handful now publish anonymised results of reclassification exercises—by grade, by location, even by gender—boosting transparency and trust.
- Some include seniority benchmarks and evaluation grids in their HR policies, offering staff a clearer view of what’s expected.
- Others give a meaningful role to their staff representatives, inviting them to co-decide on quotas, compare merits, and even participate in appeals.
These examples show that change is not only possible—it’s already underway in some parts of the EU administrative universe.
But we must go further.
A Blueprint for Fairer Reclassification
What would it take for every Temporary and Contract Agent across the EU’s decentralised agencies to say with confidence: “My reclassification was fair, transparent, and based on merit”?
Creating such a reality isn’t a utopian vision—it’s a practical roadmap based on practices already working well in some EU institutions. Here’s a closer look at the five pillars that can form the foundation of a stronger, fairer reclassification framework.
Transparent Criteria and Clear Communication
Would you board a plane without knowing the destination? Why, then, should staff be expected to trust a reclassification system without knowing its rules?
Every agency should publicly and proactively share the full framework governing reclassification. This means:
- Eligibility requirements, such as minimum time in grade, contract duration, or language certification.
- Evaluation criteria, including what counts towards merit (e.g. responsibilities, languages used, learning and development, peer/team feedback).
- Number of available reclassification slots, so expectations are managed realistically.
- Precise timelines, including when appraisal reports must be closed, when comparative assessments take place, and when decisions will be communicated.
Moreover, this information should not be buried in internal HR folders or circulated in vague annual emails. Instead, agencies should use dedicated intranet pages, FAQs, and information sessions. Staff should never have to guess what their prospects are or what steps they need to take.
Best practice: Some agencies have already begun publishing MB decisions online, including indicative seniority benchmarks. Others hold dedicated info sessions before launching the exercise. All agencies should follow suit.
Comparative Merit—Not Just Time Served
Seniority is a factor, yes. But should it be the only one?
A fair reclassification system must go beyond “time in grade” and ask: What has this staff member achieved during that time?
Agencies must implement a comparative merit assessment of all eligible staff at each grade, considering:
- Quality and impact of work delivered.
- Use of additional EU languages beyond the required two.
- Engagement in learning, development, or inter-agency collaboration.
- Leadership in projects or mentoring roles.
- Contributions to institutional knowledge or culture (e.g. committees, onboarding, voluntary initiatives).
This process should be documented and evidence-based, using standardised forms or grids. It must also be comparative—not conducted in isolation—so that staff are judged fairly against their peers at the same grade, and not arbitrarily.
Best practice: Some Commission exercises use weighting systems where merit outweighs seniority, especially in early career grades. Agencies should aim for a similar balance, ensuring those who go above and beyond are recognised.
Appeals That Are Accessible, Accountable, and Respected
What happens when something goes wrong—or simply appears unfair?
A functioning appeals mechanism is essential—not to reopen every decision, but to provide a credible channel when procedures are flawed or unclear.
Agencies should:
- Allow staff to formally appeal reclassification decisions.
- Set clear deadlines and grounds for appeals (e.g. procedural irregularities, overlooked merit).
- Establish a Joint Appeal Panel composed of HR, management, and staff representatives.
- Provide written decisions with explanations.
The mere existence of an appeal procedure has a preventive effect: it raises the bar for due diligence and fairness in the main process.
Best practice: The European Commission reserves ~5% of reclassification quotas for successful appeals. A similar mechanism would allow agency systems to stay flexible while reinforcing staff confidence.
Joint Reclassification Committees That Actually Work
What’s the role of a Joint Committee if it’s consulted after decisions are already finalised?
Reclassification Committees—made up of management and staff representatives—should be empowered to:
- Participate in the preparation phase, helping define criteria and quotas.
- Review comparative assessments and staff lists, not just rubber-stamp HR proposals.
- Monitor equity, including gender, location, and grade-level representation.
- Flag inconsistencies or concerns—before decisions are communicated.
To be effective, these committees need:
- Access to complete data sets (appraisal summaries, quotas, merit scoring).
- Time to deliberate, not rushed consultations.
- Respect for their input, with documented outcomes.
Best practice: In a few agencies, such committees operate like true co-management bodies. In others, they are symbolic. Strengthening their role is not just about procedure—it’s about ensuring that reclassification decisions are owned and trusted by the community.
Publish the Results—Not the Names, but the Numbers
Transparency doesn’t mean naming names. But without any published data, how can staff assess fairness?
After each reclassification round, agencies should publish anonymised statistical reports including:
- Total number of eligible staff per grade.
- Total number of reclassifications granted.
- Success rates by grade, gender, location, or even directorate.
- Quotas used and unused, with explanations.
- Changes or trends compared to previous years.
This doesn’t violate privacy—it empowers oversight, identifies disparities, and builds institutional memory. It also creates a baseline for improvement and public trust.
Best practice: Some agencies already publish internal reports after the reclassification round. These should become standard, ideally also reviewed by the Staff Committee.
A System That Works for Everyone
Fairness is not just a principle—it’s a process. It must be visible, accountable, and applied consistently.
With these five pillars in place, the reclassification system in EU agencies can move from quiet frustration to shared confidence. From uncertainty to clarity. From fragmentation to fairness.
Because when career development is respected, performance rewarded, and transparency guaranteed—everyone wins.
Let’s Be Honest: What’s at Stake
The EU prides itself on fairness, merit, and excellence. But when some agencies treat reclassification as a managerial courtesy rather than a structured right, that pride rings hollow.
We risk losing our best staff. We risk eroding trust. We risk sending the message that career growth depends on being in the right agency, not doing the right work.
And yet, the solution is not revolutionary. It’s about harmonising rules, investing in transparency, and trusting staff to deserve what they earn. If the Commission can do it—with tens of thousands of officials—so can a network of agencies employing a few hundred each.
Reclassification is more than a procedural step—it is a vote of confidence in staff, a recognition of growth, and a promise of opportunity. Let’s not waste the chance to make it what it should be: fair, transparent, and empowering.
In the words of a seasoned colleague recently bypassed for reclassification: “I don’t mind waiting my turn. But I do mind not knowing if I ever had one.”
That sentiment should not define the experience of EU agency staff. Not in 2025. Not anymore.
Isidoros TSOUROS
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Isidoros Tsouros assumed the role of Research Assistant at EUAA in 2019. With over 30 years of experience as a legal professional, he has had a distinguished career, being elected as the President of a Greek Law Bar Association on two occasions. In 2022, he was elected to the USB Executive Committee as a representative from the Agencies Section. He is also member of the AASC Secretariat and Chair of the EUAA Staff Committee. This article reflects his trade-union perspective and is written in that capacity.