Staff representative (534, 535, 659,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff representative
Total judgments found: 111
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 5088
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting the allegation that the former President of the Office made defamatory statements against staff representatives.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; defamation; staff representative;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the two crucial aspects of the law of defamation [...] were not met. The complainant’s reputation or good name was not tarnished given that the Communiqué was written in general terms not referring to any employee in particular. In addition, the contested Communiqué was made in circumstances that afforded a defence since an internal working document had been leaked to the press (see Judgments 4971, consideration 8, 4867, consideration 7, and 4478, consideration 9). In the result, the complainant’s claim that he was defamed by the President’s Communiqué is unfounded and he is not entitled to the moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4478, 4867, 4971
Keywords:
defamation; staff representative;
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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The premise underlying these claims is that the complainant had a justiciable right, at the time he filed his complaint on 3 June 2020, to challenge the lawfulness of the treatment of another staff member in the consideration of his possible appointment as a member of a Disciplinary Committee. He did not. It is not a matter of the type comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, which concerns alleged violation of the rights of the complainant, not of other staff members (see, for example, Judgment 4120, consideration 6). Accordingly, none of these orders would be made in these proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4120
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 5085
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for moral damages following the quashing of an administrative decision by the Tribunal.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[S]ince the complainant lodged his internal appeal in his capacity as a CSC member, any injury from the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings was suffered by the CSC and the staff representation as a whole, not by him individually. In Judgment 4550, consideration 20, the Tribunal has considered and upheld the lawfulness of the EPO’s approach to pay a global sum of 10,000 euros credited to the Staff Committee’s training and duty travels budgetary line (see, for example, Judgments 4575, consideration 12, and 4550, consideration 20). The complainant’s claim for individual moral damages in this respect is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4550, 4575
Keywords:
internal appeal; moral damages; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; moral damages; staff representative;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]n a recent plenary decision by seven judges, the Tribunal held that complainants acting as staff representatives are not entitled to an award of moral damages. Judgment 4575, consideration 9, states as follows:
“According to a recent precedent […] a complainant, acting as a staff representative, is not entitled to an award of moral damages (see Judgment 4550, consideration 20). By their very nature, violations of the rights of staff representatives cannot, under any circumstances, give rise to any personal right to financial compensation.
Depending on the circumstances of the case, a moral injury, due to its nature, can be restored not only by means of a sum of money. While the Tribunal considers that it is beyond its power to order a public apology (see Judgment 2762, consideration 31), it determines that the annulment of the impugned decision can be considered by itself a form of redress of moral injury (see Judgments 1745, consideration 12, and 1481, consideration 8). In a case similar to the present, […] the Tribunal affirmed that the EPO, by requiring prior authorization for the dispatching of mass emails, breached the complainants’ freedom of communication. Nonetheless, in that case, the Tribunal, as to the redress for moral injury, held that the annulment of the impugned decision was in itself a sufficient remedy for any moral injury the complainants may have conceivably suffered (see Judgment 4551, consideration 16). [...]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1481, 1745, 2762, 4550, 4551, 4575
Keywords:
moral damages; staff representative;
Judgment 5063
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the amounts paid to them by way of moral damages and costs following an internal appeal that they filed as staff representatives.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; costs for internal appeal procedure; moral damages; staff representative;
Judgment 5062
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest Circulars Nos. 355 and 356 concerning the elections of staff representatives and the resources and facilities granted to them, as well as decision CA/D 2/14, introducing the “social democracy” reform.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 5061
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, acting in his capacity as a staff representative at the material time, challenges the decision to transfer Mr L. to a post of Director.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; locus standi; staff representative; transfer;
Consideration 7
Extract:
At relevant times, no provision in the Service Regulations foresaw the involvement of staff representatives in internal transfer processes […]. Therefore, contrary to the case law relevantly stated in consideration 14 of Judgment 3642, the applicable provisions did not confer on the complainant, as an elected representative, a right which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute […]. The result is that the complainant has no standing to bring this complaint and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The complaint is accordingly irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3642
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 5060
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting in their capacity as staff representatives at the material time, challenge the decision to appoint Mr L. to the post of Special Advisor.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The case law […] makes it plain that in a case in which a complainant brings a complaint in a representative capacity, the Tribunal of its own motion may address, as a preliminary issue, whether that complainant can do so merely in such a capacity, and, by extension, whether she or he has standing to render the complaint receivable. Notably, in consideration 8 of Judgment 4322, the Tribunal stated that if a complainant does not allege a violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint. The complainant would have no cause of action, which is a necessary precondition for the Tribunal’s competence to entertain a complaint under the provisions of its own Statute. The Tribunal further noted that this case law connects this issue to the issue of receivability.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322
Keywords:
cause of action; cause of action of staff representative; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; cause of action of staff representative; complaint dismissed; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Plainly, contrary to the case law relevantly stated in consideration 14 of Judgment 3642, the provisions which the complainants allege had not been observed did not confer on them, as elected representatives, a right which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute […]. The reasons the complainants advance (referred to in consideration 1 of this judgment) for instituting the challenge to the appointment of Mr L. to the contested position in their capacity as staff representatives are not legally founded in light of the applicable rules and case law which recognizes only a confined right. In the result, the complainants do not have standing to bring these complaints, which are accordingly irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3642
Keywords:
appointment; locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 4897
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In this regard, in the first place, the complainant takes issue with the fact that the Appraisals Committee, established from 1 January 2015 by Article 110a of the Service Regulations, does not include a staff representative, unlike the Internal Appeals Committee which had until then been responsible for dealing with challenges to appraisal reports. However, the Tribunal has already held that this characteristic does not mean that the composition of the new body is inadequate (see Judgments 4795, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 11, and 4257, consideration 13). This plea will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637, 4795
Keywords:
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Judgment 4806
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, acting in his capacity as staff representative at the material time, challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; staff representative;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has already ruled, in relation to the objection procedure applicable to appraisals of other permanent employees of the Office, which shares these same features mutatis mutandis, that the fact that no staff representatives were included on the Appraisals Committee competent to review the appraisal reports of those other employees did not mean that the Committee’s composition was inadequate, and the fact that the Committee’s mandate was confined to determining whether such reports were arbitrary or discriminatory was legally admissible (see Judgments 4637, considerations 11 and 13, and 4257, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637
Keywords:
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of anemployee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).
Among the various pleas entered by the complainant [...], there is one that is decisive for the outcome of this dispute, [...] since it relates to a material fact that was allegedly overlooked. This is the plea that the President of the Boards of Appeal refused to take account of the fact that the 50 per cent exemption from duties granted to the complainant as a full member of the CSC, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Circular No. 356 concerning the resources and facilities to be granted to the Staff Committee, was insufficient in the light of actual needs observed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Judgment 4626
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rules introduced with effect from 1 July 2013 governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The complainant] seeks moral damages on behalf of all other staff. There is no legal basis for doing so, particularly having regard to the terms of Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
moral damages; staff representative;
Judgment 4605
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness and the results of the election for members of the new Staff Council.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim moot; complaint dismissed; election; staff representative;
Judgment 4575
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints concern compensation following the refusal to allow the Central Staff Committee to publish two documents on the EPO’s Intranet.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; moral damages; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Consideration 7
Extract:
As to the receivability of the complainants’ request for an award of moral damages in the amount of one euro per staff member, the Tribunal notes that its jurisdiction ratione personae, pursuant to Article II of the Statute, is of an individual nature. The Tribunal can only order that the Organisation pay compensation for damages to the complainants (Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal), and not to third parties. For this reason, the Tribunal will not follow Judgment 2857, which underpins the complainants’ argument on this topic.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2857
Keywords:
cause of action; moral damages; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; third party;
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to a recent precedent, decided by the seven judges of the Tribunal, a complainant, acting as a staff representative, is not entitled to an award of moral damages (see Judgment 4550, consideration 20). By their very nature, violations of the rights of staff representatives cannot, under any circumstances, give rise to any personal right to financial compensation.
Depending on the circumstances of the case, a moral injury, due to its nature, can be restored not only by means of a sum of money. While the Tribunal considers that it is beyond its power to order a public apology (see Judgment 2762, consideration 31), it determines that the annulment of the impugned decision can be considered by itself a form of redress of moral injury (see Judgments 1745, consideration 12, and 1481, consideration 8). In a case similar to the present, concerning censorship in violation of freedom of communication, the Tribunal affirmed that the EPO, by requiring prior authorization for the dispatching of mass emails, breached the complainants’ freedom of communication. Nonetheless, in that case, the Tribunal, as to the redress for moral injury, held that the annulment of the impugned decision was in itself a sufficient remedy for any moral injury the complainants may have conceivably suffered (see Judgment 4551, consideration 16).
Similarly, in the present case, it must be held that the […] decision admitting the unlawfulness of the censorship related to the publication of two documents, together with the publicity given to this decision on the Organisation’s website, were already sufficient redress for any moral injury.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1481, 1745, 2762, 4550, 4551
Keywords:
moral damages; satisfaction; staff representative;
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
The Tribunal decides that, although there may have been some inconsistencies regarding this issue in its previous case law, the exclusion of the entitlement of staff representatives to personal financial compensation extends to moral damages resulting from excessive length in the internal appeal proceedings. […]
The complainants lodged their internal appeals only in their capacity as members of the Central Staff Committee. It follows that the injury for the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings was suffered by the Central Staff Committee and the staff representation as a whole, not by the staff representatives individually.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages; staff representative;
Judgment 4566
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a selection procedure for which he was a member of the Selection Board.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he complainant lacks locus standi in his capacity as a staff representative for the reasons given by the Tribunal in its case law (see Judgment 3642, considerations 8 to 14). Secondly, he lacks locus standi in his capacity as a member of the Selection Board. In Judgment 4317, consideration 4, the Tribunal relevantly stated as follows:
“[...] the Tribunal adopted Judgment 3557, in a summary procedure, where it found that it was clear that the complainant, who was likewise acting in his capacity as a member of a Selection Board, did not have standing to challenge the outcome of the selection procedure. The same reasoning must be applied in the present case as ‘[the complainant] does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute’.
As a matter of general principle, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, allege and demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgments 3921, consideration 6, and 3168, consideration 9). In accordance with this case law, a member of a board within an international organization, acting in this capacity, may only raise with the Tribunal the defects that have affected her or his prerogatives as a member of the board as defined by the internal provisions (see above-mentioned Judgment 3921, consideration 9). In the present case, the complainant does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment or of board-related internal provisions.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3557, 3642, 3921, 4317
Keywords:
locus standi; member of an internal body; selection board; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; locus standi; member of an internal body; selection board; selection procedure; staff representative;
Judgment 4551
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest modifications made with respect to the use of mass emails within the Office.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law has long recognised that staff of international organisations have a general right to associate freely. There can be no doubt that freedom of association is a well-recognised and acknowledged universal right which all workers should enjoy. It is recognised as a right by the Tribunal as well as by a large number of international conventions and declarations (see, for example, the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Article 2(a); the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 22; the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 8), and by the Administrative Council of the EPO itself, which recognised the importance of human rights when formulating the rights and obligations of staff (see Judgment 4482, considerations 12 and 13). Article 30 of the Service Regulations, entitled “Freedom of association”, provides: “Permanent employees shall enjoy freedom of association; they may in particular be members of trade unions or staff associations of European civil servants”. 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 (see Judgment 4482, consideration 8).
Freedom of association necessarily involves freedom of discussion and debate. In Judgment 274, under 22, the Tribunal stated that “this freedom when feelings run strong [...] can spill over into extravagant and even regrettable language”. Nonetheless, the Tribunal also acknowledged that freedom of discussion and debate is not absolute and that there may be cases in which an Administration can intervene if, for example, there is “gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives” (see Judgments 2227, consideration 7, and 3106, consideration 8).
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the Administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. Thus, any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the Administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned (see Judgment 911 and Judgment 2227, consideration 7).
In Judgment 3156 the Tribunal held that, in specific cases, a prior authorisation for the dispatching of mass emails could be justified: “The freedom of speech and the freedom of communication [...] are not, however, unlimited. Not only is an organisation entitled to object to misuse of the means of distribution made available to its staff committee [...], but it also follows from the case law [...] that the right to freedom of speech does not encompass action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, or gross abuse of this right and, in particular, damage to the individual interests of certain persons through allusions that are malicious, defamatory or which concern their private lives. [...] Since organisations must prevent such abuse of the right of free speech, the Tribunal’s case law does not absolutely prohibit the putting in place of a mechanism for the prior authorisation of messages circulated by bodies representing the staff. 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” (see Judgment 3156, considerations 15 and 16).
As observed earlier, the right to freely associate is a general right that enshrines more specific rights, which are necessary or useful in order to ensure that the right to freely associate is effective. It includes the rights to freedom of communication, information, and speech in all forms, including discussion and debate (see Judgment 3106, considerations 7 and 8). Such rights are vested not only in their authors (usually the staff representatives), but also in the recipients. The right of each staff member to freely associate also includes their right to freely receive communications and information, and their right to listen to speeches. In this perspective, every limitation to the right of staff representatives to send mass emails to the staff members, is also a limitation to the right of the staff members to receive mass emails.
Free communication, information, and speech also imply:
(i) the right to the confidentiality of communication, information, and speech; and
(ii) the right to freely choose the means by which the communications are sent, information is provided, and speeches are given.
An organisation is entitled to issue reasonable guidelines in order to govern the use of the office emails by staff members and staff representatives, and to establish authorised and non-authorised uses. Insofar as the criteria on the use of mass emails are underpinned by general interests, such as those listed in Communiqué No. 10 of 29 March 2006, they shall be considered lawful, as they ensure a reasonable balance between the interests of the organisation and the fundamental rights to free communication, information, and speech, vested in the staff members and their staff unions and representatives. This general balance should not allow a prior supervision or preventive censorship by the organisation on the content of the communications, information, and speech (see Judgment 2227, consideration 7). However, the Tribunal’s case law considers lawful a mechanism of prior authorisation under exceptional circumstances (see Judgment 3156, considerations 15 and 16 quoted in full in consideration 9 [...]).
Staff members and their representatives are not allowed an indiscriminate and unfettered exercise of their rights to freedom of communication, information, and speech. Their “freedom” must be consistent with the duties of the staff members towards the Organisation and towards fellow staff members. Freedom of communication, information, and speech is not freedom to insult or to offend (see Judgment 3106, considerations 7 and 8). The communication, information, and speech fall within the responsibility of their authors. Those that exceed the boundaries of freedom and fail to respect the duties of a staff member or result in insults or offences should be subject to disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.
Whether a communication, information, or speech violates the duty of the staff members can be established only on a case-by-case basis, and, normally, after the communication, information, and speech are divulged.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 911, 2227, 2227, 3106, 3106, 3156, 4482
Keywords:
email; freedom of association; freedom of speech; international instrument; staff representative;
Consideration 16
Extract:
Each complainant [...] seeks an award of 20,000 euros in moral damages for the “serious breach” of their rights since 2013. The Tribunal finds that the annulment of the impugned decision is in itself a sufficient remedy for any moral injury the complainants may have conceivably suffered.
Keywords:
moral damages; satisfaction; staff representative;
Judgment 4550
134th 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 and implemented in particular by Circular No. 356.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, employees are not entitled, when they file a complaint against an organisation in their capacity as staff representatives, to receive damages in their personal capacity (see, for example, Judgments 3258, consideration 5, 3522, consideration 6, 3671, consideration 5, or 4230, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3258, 3522, 3671, 4230
Keywords:
moral damages; staff representative;
Judgment 4486
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the composition of the Munich Staff Committee and of the Central Staff Committee.
Consideration 4
Extract:
With regard to his standing as an alleged member of the MSC [Munich Staff Committee] and the CSC [Central Staff Committee], as rightly pointed out by the IAC and endorsed by the President, at the time of the appeal, the complainant was not a member of the MSC because he had resigned from it, regardless of the purpose underlying his resignation. He was not a member of the CSC either. Pursuant to Article 2 of the then Election Regulations, “[t]he local section [that is to say the MSC] shall appoint the Munich members of the [CSC]”. Therefore, his election to the MSC did not automatically mean that he was also elected to the CSC. On the contrary, a separate appointment is a prerequisite according to the above provision. The complainant did not produce any evidence that the MSC appointed him as a member of the CSC. Thus, his claims as a staff representative of either the MSC or the CSC, including claims for declaring the composition of the MSC and the CSC void, for recognising his mandate to represent in the CSC the category C employees and for accessing the tools of communication for Staff Committee’s members, are irreceivable ratione personae. Accordingly, his allegation that the denial of his participation in the CSC activities constitutes a violation of the prohibition of non-discrimination and of equal treatment is not receivable either.
Keywords:
competence; internal appeals body; member of an internal body; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; staff representative;
Judgment 4485
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Acting in his capacity as a staff representative, the complainant challenges the decision to assign different duties and responsibilities to a Principal Director without a competitive selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure; staff representative;
Consideration 1
Extract:
The EPO notes that the complainant filed the present complaint in his capacity as a staff representative, but explicitly states that it does not challenge the receivability of the complaint. In view of the position of the EPO and the fact that, ultimately, the complaint is to be dismissed, the Tribunal will not, itself, examine the receivability of the complaint. However, this should not be taken as a tacit acceptance by the Tribunal that, in a similar case in the future, the complaint will be treated, without question, as receivable.
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
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 keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; freedom of association; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant’s contention that the decision not to promote him was a hidden disciplinary sanction against him because he was a staff representative appointed by the Central Staff Committee as a member of the General Advisory Committee, to discourage employees from being staff representatives, is unfounded. The complainant provides no evidence, as against conjecture, to prove a nexus between the non-promotion decision and this allegation or from which it may be inferred that the decision was retaliatory (see, for example, Judgment 2907, under 23) or was actuated by prejudice.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2907
Keywords:
hidden disciplinary measure; promotion; retaliation; staff representative;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
