|
|
 |
|
|
Staff union (525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff union
Total judgments found: 66
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 5195
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of his application to stand for election to the Staff Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; election; staff union;
Judgment 5163
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, as a staff union representative and Vice-President of the Staff Committee, contests the decision to use external suppliers and cancel an ongoing recruitment process for regular staff for the functions thus outsourced.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; consultation; outsourcing; staff union;
Judgment 5104
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject as time-barred her compensation claim for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant is also entitled to costs. As she was represented by the Lawyer and Legal Consultant for the ILO Staff Union, she will be awarded 1,000 euros.
Keywords:
costs; counsel; legal assistance; staff union;
Judgment 5087
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to remove the name of Mr T., a permanent employee at grade A4(2), from the list of grade A5 nominees to the Disciplinary Committee for 2013.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 5078
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges general decisions CA/D 22/09 and CA/D 2/14, as well as the individual decisions rejecting his respective requests to participate in the 2013 and 2014 Staff Committee elections.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he purpose of the amendment was explicitly to ensure the Staff Committee comprised members actively involved in the day-to-day running of the service. The exclusion of employees in non-active status directly served the legitimate organisational objective of operational effectiveness.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint dismissed; freedom of association; general decision; staff regulations and rules; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 5075
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the introduction of a quality monitoring system as well as the adoption of the Practice and Procedure Notice 09/11 and contest the validity of the internal appeals proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; consultation; iloat statute; staff union;
Consideration 4
Extract:
In an earlier case similarly concerning the challenge of a Notice related to the procedures applicable to patent applications (PPN 03/11), the Tribunal held that the Notice concerned the work to be performed and the way it was performed as comprehended by the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 3053 [...], and that, accordingly, the GAC should, on a possible very wide reading of Article 38(3) of the Service Regulations, have been consulted […].
Similarly, in the present case, [Practice and Procedure Notice 09/11 (PPN 09/11)] describes the opinion to be issued by the examiners and the related time limits and, to this extent, it concerns the work to be performed and the way it is performed, and, accordingly, the GAC should have been consulted.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3053
Keywords:
consultation; staff union;
Judgment 4971
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In light of the […] Staff Regulations and Rules, and the Standards of Conduct, international civil servants must be impartial and independent from national States, and cannot engage in outside activities which can undermine their independence and their impartiality. There can be no doubt that freedom of association is a well-recognised and acknowledged universal right which all workers, including international civil servants, should enjoy (see Judgment 4551, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein). International civil servants have the right to join trade unions without seeking prior authorization from their employer.
In addition, the private activities of WIPO’s staff members are respected to the extent that the Staff Regulations and Rules allow staff to engage in “specific outside activities” which are defined as “private non-remunerated activities for social, artistic, religious, or charitable purposes which have no relation to the staff member’s official functions or to the Organization”, with no need for prior authorization. However, in order to join other kinds of private associations included in the definition of “outside activities”, WIPO’s staff members need to seek the prior authorization of their employer, aimed at assessing that the purposes of the private associations are not in conflict with the staff members’ duty to be impartial and independent. Having regard to the statutory purposes of the AIP, this Association cannot be included in the definition of “Specific outside activities – Social, artistic, religious or charitable activities” provided for by paragraph 15 of Office Instruction No. 1/2018. Nor can it be characterized as a trade union or staff association. Although Article 1 of its Statute states that AIP is a “non-profit association” and that “[i]t is politically neutral”, these statements are contradicted by Article 3 of the Statute. The purposes illustrated in Article 3 concern the interests of India and Indian nationals, and are political in nature, as they refer, inter alia, to improving relations between India, Switzerland, and the respective international and non-governmental organizations of the members of AIP, and contributing to India’s developmental goals and aspirations. Therefore, the complainant could not have engaged in the AIP at his own discretion without requesting prior authorization from his employer.
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the impugned decision and the disciplinary decision are free from flaws with regard to the first, second and fourth counts of the first charge letter. They correctly considered that the AIP’s objectives are inconsistent with a WIPO staff member’s duty of impartiality and independence, and that, accordingly, the complainant engaged in an outside activity in contrast with his duties without even trying to seek prior authorization. In addition, the disciplinary decision provided persuasive evidence of the complainant’s “instrumental contribution in forming and operationalizing the AIP” […]
As to the complainant’s contention that the AIP’s aim to contribute to the development of India was never pursued and was only one among many other aims that were ignored by the Organization, the Tribunal reiterates that the AIP’s Statute is unequivocal in stating political objectives in the interest of India. Accordingly, it is immaterial whether the complainant actually took action to reach the statutory objective. It is also immaterial to consider the many purposes of the AIP, because those that were taken into account by WIPO are inconsistent with the duties of an international civil servant.
Moreover, the mere fact that the complainant had a significant role in forming and operationalizing the AIP, as described in the first charge letter, amounts to evidence of the charge that he made the interests of the AIP prevail over those of the Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4551
Keywords:
freedom of association; impartiality; independence; outside activity; staff union;
Judgment 4797
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the modifications made to the procedure for examining patent applications and contest the validity of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; consultation; staff union;
Consideration 9
Extract:
While it is true the [Practice and Procedure Notice 03/11 (PPN 03/11)] concerns the procedures applicable to patent applications, it nonetheless directed, as the Tribunal apprehends it, that the primary examiner identifies and, it appears, records “the three names of the members of the future Examining Division” and “consult [with] the future members, in order to ensure that the others share his preliminary opinion”. At least in this respect, the Notice concerned the work to be performed and the way it was performed as comprehended by the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 3053 […]. Accordingly, the [General Advisory Committee] should, on a possible very wide reading of Article 38(3) of the Service Regulations, have been consulted.
Keywords:
consultation; staff union;
Judgment 4500
134th Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish the Joint Commissary Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; consultation; staff union;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Given that the complainant succeeds on this central issue, he will be awarded 1,000 euros in costs, as the Tribunal cannot award it to the AP-in-FAO to whom he requests it be paid. Indeed, the AP-in-FAO is not a party to the case.
Keywords:
costs; staff union;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law regarding consultation states, in consideration 13 of Judgment 4230, for example, that “a proper consultation must allow a reasonable amount of time for the consulted body to discuss the issue, have its principal questions answered and provide reasoned advice or recommendations, and must also allow time for the deciding authority to take that advice into consideration prior to taking the final decision. In Judgment 380, consideration 21, the Tribunal stated: ‘Where there is only a simple obligation to consult, the decision-maker’s duty is to listen or at most to exchange views. The object of the consultation is that [she or] he will make the best decision and the assumption is that [she or] he will not succeed in doing that unless [she or] he has the benefit of the views of the person consulted. [...]’”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 380, 4230
Keywords:
consultation; staff union;
Judgment 4483
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.
Consideration 9
Extract:
There can be no doubt that effective consultation with staff is a desirable objective recognised in a number of judgments of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 4230). But the right to freely associate fundamentally concerns the right of staff to organise themselves, free of interference from the Administration, in order to advance their collective interests which can also involve advancing individual interests though collectively. Ordinarily that would occur through a staff union or staff association (whether recognised in the rules or not, see Judgment 2672, considerations 9 and 10) and by officials representing those bodies. Those interests will include levels of remuneration and terms and conditions of employment and embrace, without describing matters exhaustively, security of employment, safety in the workplace and post-employment income. A necessary incident of freedom of association is that the staff representatives have an opportunity to discuss staff grievances with the administration of an international organisation even if the opportunity is created by strike action (see, for example, Judgment 4435, consideration 9). While bodies such as the LACs and the GAC provided an avenue for consultation and discussion, it was an avenue outside the framework comprehended by the notion of freedom of association. That is because it was not consultation as part of a broader and integrated process of collectively advancing and protecting the interests of staff through staff unions or staff associations but rather was a singular, discrete and, in this sense, isolated process. As a result of decision CA/D 2/14, LSCs continued in name though fundamental and unlawful changes were made to the manner in which members of LSCs were elected, a matter addressed in another judgment adopted at this session (see Judgment 4482). Nonetheless LSCs were given, by operation of new Article 37 of the Service Regulations, a role at a local level to engage in discussion, on behalf of staff at the local level, about matters including those concerning conditions of employment of those staff. These arrangements are consistent with the right of staff to freely associate, and the abolition of another parallel system of consultation embodied in the LACs did not compromise or deny that right of staff at a local level. In the result, the complainant has not established the abolition of the LACs was unlawful for the reason he advanced.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2672, 4230, 4435, 4482
Keywords:
consultation; freedom of association; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 4482
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
There is a consistent line of case law of the Tribunal which makes clear, in a variety of ways, that organisations should not interfere in the affairs of a staff association or union (however described) and the association or union must have the concomitant right to conduct its own affairs and regulate its own activities (see, for example, Judgment 4043, consideration 13). It also includes the right to freely elect their own representatives. This is so whether the association or union is established and operates under and by reference to staff regulations or came into existence and operates outside the confines of such regulations (see Judgment 2672, considerations 9 and 10). There are obvious reasons for this approach. The role of staff associations or unions is to represent the interests of members primarily in dealing with their employing organisation on issues concerning the staff. Staff associations or unions should be able to do so unhindered or uninfluenced by the Administration of the employing organisation. Were it otherwise, the role would be compromised.
There are other less obvious reasons. A staff association or union is likely to be more robust and thus more effective if the members perceive it to be independent and have confidence in it allied to a sense of ownership of it. Any involvement by the employing organisation in its activities, including elections, would most likely affect that perception and diminish or dampen that confidence and sense of ownership. While this latter reason should not be overstated, it nonetheless should be recognised (see Judgment 403, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 403, 2672, 4043
Keywords:
freedom of association; staff union;
Judgment 4229
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the World Food Programme, challenges the decision to maintain the decision not to renew his contract, and to award him material and moral damages instead of reinstatement.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks 5,000 euros in costs. The FAO opposes this request on the ground that as the complainant is represented by the Legal Officer of the Association of Professional Staff whose function is funded by the FAO, an award of costs would amount to double payment of legal fees. As the complainant has not disputed this, the Tribunal will award no costs.
Keywords:
costs; staff union;
Judgment 3939
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 5
Extract:
It must first be emphasised that, contrary to the complainant’s submissions, the provision of the Constitution of the ISAU setting the Treasurer’s term of office [...] does not constitute a “statutory requirement” established by the Organization’s authorities. Since, in accordance with the principle of trade-union freedom, the ISAU is an entity separate from the Administration of UNESCO, its Constitution, although subject to the Director-General’s approval, cannot be regarded as an integral part of the rules and regulations governing the Organization, and the fact that its text is reproduced as an appendix to the Human Resources Manual for ease of consultation by staff members does not by any means have the effect of incorporating it therein.
Keywords:
applicable law; staff union;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal has already emphasised, it is in the interests of an international organisation to ensure that the trade unions or associations representing its staff operate in good conditions (see Judgment 496, under 17). Hence, in order to determine whether retaining an official in service beyond the age of retirement is in the organisation’s interests, it is necessary to take account of any staff representative work carried out by the person in question (see, with respect to a similar case, Judgment 3521, under 1 to 3 and 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 3521
Keywords:
age limit; equal treatment; organisation's interest; retirement; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 3526
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the elections of the Staff Committee for the 2008-2009 mandate.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; election; staff union;
Judgment 3156
114th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, who are former staff representatives, unsuccessfully challenge decisions which, in their view, constituted violations of the right of staff representation.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Since organisations must prevent [any] abuse of the right of free speech [enjoyed by bodies representing the staff], the Tribunal’s case law does not absolutely prohibit the putting in place of a mechanism for the prior authorisation of messages circulated by [such] bodies [...]. An organisation acts unlawfully only if the conditions for implementing this mechanism in practice lead to a breach of that right, for example by an unjustified refusal to circulate a particular message."
Keywords:
bias; breach; collective rights; condition; facilities; flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; refusal; right; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 3106
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100
Keywords:
breach; competence; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 3084
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[A]n organisation must ensure that a staff member is not disadvantaged on the grounds of his or her participation in staff representation activities."
Keywords:
equal treatment; freedom of association; organisation's duties; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2926
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
The complainant worked for the ILO Staff Union from 2 August to 31 December 2004 under a special short-term contract. Subsequently, he continued to make his services available to the Staff Union without any written contract. He asks the Tribunal to find that he has been an ILO official since August 2004.
"The Tribunal considers [...] that the fact that the complainant continued to make his services available to the Staff Union in the absence of any contract, that he was given access to the material facilities which the Office provides for the Staff Union, and that performance appraisal reports were drawn up for him could not confer on him a status that had not been granted by a formal administrative document. It follows that when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, he was not in a position to invoke the status of an official bound to the Organization by a contract concluded in accordance with the rules in force. [...] It follows that the complainant, since he lacks the status of an ILO official, has no access to the Tribunal, which must decline jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; effect; facilities; formal requirements; no provision; non official; performance report; short-term; staff union; status of complainant; written rule;
Judgment 2874
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal held that “Article 38(3) does of course […] apply to cases where the Service Regulations and Pension Scheme Regulations are to be amended or ‘implementing rules’ are to be made, and the legal status of staff is thereby to be affected. But it goes further: it applies to cases where ‘any proposal’ is made ‘which concerns the whole or part of the staff’. So it casts a wide net that goes beyond mere changes in legal provisions.” The Tribunal has also held that “Article 38(3) does not interfere with the President’s exercise of his decision-making authority, but seeks to ensure that the proposal shall go through a formal process in which the staff have a right to be consulted through the General Advisory Committee” (see Judgment 1488, under 9 and 10). Furthermore, in accordance with the provision of Article 10(2) of the European Patent Convention, the President “shall take all necessary steps to ensure the functioning of the European Patent Office, including the adoption of internal administrative instructions and information to the public”, and unless otherwise stipulated in the Convention “he shall prescribe which acts are to be performed at the European Patent Office in Munich and its branch at The Hague respectively”. The exercise of these powers is, thus, subject to Article 38(3) of the Service Regulations and the GAC must be consulted on “any proposal which concerns the whole or part of the staff”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1488
Keywords:
consultation; organisation's duties; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 2827
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The EPO contends that the complaints are irreceivable ratione materiae on the basis that the implied decision refusing to provide the complainants with the requested information is not a "decision relating to a specific individual" for the purposes of Article 106 of the Service Regulations. It was pointed out in Judgment 1542 that: "a complaint is receivable only if it is about an individual official's status as an employee of the organisation, not about the collective interests of trade unionists." It is well settled that a complaint may concern breach of the Service Regulations (see Judgment 1147) or other guarantees that the EPO is bound to provide to its staff (see Judgment 2649). Those guarantees extend to freedom of association and collective bargaining insofar as they are implicit in the Service Regulations. With respect to collective bargaining, it is sufficient to note that Article 34(1) mandates that the Staff Committee "shall represent the interests of the staff and maintain suitable contacts between the competent administrative authorities and the staff" and that Article 36(1) enables it to "mak[e] [...] suggestions relating to [...] the collective interests of the whole or part of the staff". However, the rights that are comprehended within the notions of "freedom of association" and "collective bargaining" that may also be the subject of an internal appeal and, subsequently, of a complaint to the Tribunal are individual rights inhering in individual staff members."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 34, 36 and 106 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1542, 2649
Keywords:
collective bargaining; collective rights; complaint; decision; freedom of association; individual decision; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The argument that the complaints are not receivable ratione personae is based solely on the fact that the complainants did not describe themselves as members of the Staff Committee, in which capacity they may institute proceedings to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147, 1897 and 2649), but as «elected staff representatives». The argument must be rejected. The complainants are members of the Staff Committee, a fact that was communicated to the EPO in June 2006, shortly after their election. Moreover, they referred in their request of 4 July 2007 to Article 34 of the Service Regulations which sets forth certain duties of the Committee. The EPO does not, and could not credibly claim that it has been prejudiced by the complainants' failure to state expressly that they are members of the Staff Committee. In these circumstances it is not in the interests of justice to hold the complaints irreceivable by reason of what the EPO, itself, implicitly acknowledges was a «clerical error»."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 34 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897, 2649
Keywords:
complaint; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
