3 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2017/2148(DEC)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes from the Court’s reportRegrets that in the Court’s 2014 report, it reported underpayments to staff for the period 2005 to 2014 in relation to the transition to the new Union Staff Regulations in 2005, particularly in light of the fact this is the 'European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions'; notes that, although the reasons for the underpayments (2014: non-respect of minimum guaranteed salaries; 2015: wrong multiplication factor on salaries) are different, the Court has again found underpayments (EUR 43 350) and some overpayments (EUR 168 930), affecting 30 active and previous staff members; notes that the Foundation corrected all underpayments, but will not recover the overpayments (in line with Article 85 of the current Staff Regulations); calls on the Foundation to analyse again any possible mistakes in relation to the transition to the 2005 Staff Regulations, carry out a full evaluation of its payroll function and report its findings to the discharge authority; acknowledges from the Foundation that a comprehensive internal audit of the payroll function took place in April 2017; notes that the Foundation is awaiting the final report and due regard will be given to any recommendations made; calls on the Foundation to report to the discharge authority on the corrective measures that will be taken;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that work-life balance should be a part of the Foundation’s staff policy; stresses that the budget spent per staff on well-being activities amounts to EUR 80,21; observes that the average number of sick leave per staff is 6,5 days - lower than in many other EU Agencies but still worrying, and worthy of examination to see if workplace stress is a factor - and that no member of staff was on full- year sick leave;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes from the Court’s report that, in its audit report dated December 2016, the internal audit service (IAS) highlighted a need to improve the Foundation’s management of projects, mainly in relation to governance arrangements, monitoring and reporting; notes, moreo with satisfaction, however, that the Foundation and the IAS agreed on a plan to take corrective action;