Bullying in the public sector: A unilateral decision and its consequences

When Alain Rolling appeared before the press in mid-November, he didn't know much about the number 7183. However, the Central Secretary of the Public Service Syndicate at the OGBL/Landesverband can hardly be blamed for this. After all, the draft bill behind this number has so far had a rather inconspicuous existence in parliamentary life.

However, the bill should actually be on everyone's lips at the moment, not only, but also against the backdrop of the allegations of bullying that were recently levelled against the Contern municipal council of aldermen. Because the text provides an answer to the demands of trade unionists for an independent body and a clear procedure for investigating suspected cases of harassment in the entire public sector.

Looking back: In September 2017, the then Minister for the Civil Service, Dan Kersch (LSAP), submitted the text to Parliament. It provided for the pooling of several services in the area of public servants' health and safety: The Psychosocial Service (SPS), the Department of Occupational Health, the Department of Control Medicine in the Public Service and the National Service for Safety in the Public Service were to be united under the umbrella of the "Centre pour la sécurité, la santé et la qualité de vie au travail de la Fonction publique" (CSQT). This was all done with the agreement of the civil servants' union. This is because the creation of the new administration is anchored in the salary agreement of 5 December 2016 between the ministry and the CGFP. And this CSQT was also supposed to deal with harassment dossiers.

A formal investigation procedure

Specifically, the bill provided for the introduction of a procedure. Civil servants with investigative powers were to hear the victim, the alleged perpetrator(s) of the humiliation and witnesses as part of a formal procedure and summarise their findings in a report. This investigation report should then be sent to the responsible head of administration or the responsible minister, supplemented by recommendations if necessary. Or – as the Council of State should point out in its report in order to take account of the circumstances of the municipalities – to the college of mayors and aldermen or, if the latter is itself affected, to the Ministry of the Interior. Or to the departmental ministry in the case of bullying incidents in public institutions.