Staff union (525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff union
Total judgments found: 59
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that individual members of the Staff Committee must have the power to file suit as representatives of that body (Judgments 1147, 1269, 1315, 2036). The rationale is that if the Staff Committee is not able to file suit, the only way to preserve common rights and interests of staff is to allow individual officials to act as representatives (see Judgment 1315, under 8, referring to Judgment 1269, under 13)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1269, 1315, 2036
Keywords:
case law; collective rights; grounds; official; right of appeal; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 2493
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. "[I]f it were a work stoppage not involving unlawful actions, the question arises as to whether the Agency could, in view of the provisions of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations whereby an official is bound to ensure the continuity of the service and must not cease to exercise his functions without previous authorisation, deem participation in the collective action by the officials in question to be unlawful. Without overlooking the fact that a strike will necessarily affect continuity of service, the Tribunal considers that, if the answer to that question were yes, it would in practice deprive of all substance the exercise of a right, the existence of which the Agency does not deny and which, according to the case law, is lawful in principle (see, for instance, Judgments 615 and 2342 of the Tribunal). To make the exercise of that right conditional on obtaining leave of absence would clearly be incompatible with the principle itself, the necessary corollary of which is the freedom of officials to follow or not to follow a call to strike duly issued by their representative organisations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 11 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 615, 2342
Keywords:
collective rights; condition; consequence; continuance of operations; disciplinary measure; freedom of association; general principle; provision; right to strike; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; staff union; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Judgment 2422
98th Session, 2005
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Staff Association has submitted an amicus curiae brief. The defendant is not opposed to an examination of those submissions by the Tribunal, but it points out that the staff representatives raised no objection to the implementation of the new salary scale at the IAEA when they were consulted on the matter. That of course does not prevent the Staff Association from expressing different views, which the Tribunal agrees to take into consideration for the reasons set forth in Judgment 2420 [...] whilst emphasising that these submissions are not to be regarded as the brief of an intervener."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2420
Keywords:
adjustment; amicus curiae; consultation; icsc decision; intervention; rate; salary; scale; staff union;
Judgment 2420
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Association of Professional Staff has submitted an amicus curiae brief. Although the possibility of gathering the observations of an association or union representing staff interests is not envisaged under its Statute, the Tribunal considers that it can only be beneficial to extend that possibility, as do other international administrative tribunals, to associations and unions wishing to defend the rights of the staff members whom they represent in the context of disputes concerning decisions affecting the staff as a whole or a specific category of staff members. Indeed, the Organization has raised no objection to the Tribunal's examination of the submissions in question, which are not, however, to be equated with the brief of an intervener, and which are simply intended to clarify certain points raised by the complaints with the Tribunal."
Keywords:
amicus curiae; general decision; icsc decision; iloat statute; intervention; staff union;
Judgment 2228
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Staff Committee, which is a statutory body of the organisation, made the facilities derived from its access to the organisation's internal electronic mail system available to the Staff Union. Its access to the system was withdrawn. "The organisation [submits that] the facilities offered to the Staff Committee cannot be made available to the Staff Union without creating confusion with regard to the attribution of roles and responsibilities, even if those in charge of one of these bodies are also, or may be, in charge of the other. This does not mean to say that the unions should not be provided with certain facilities by the organisations. On the contrary, their freedom of expression should not be hampered, as indicated by the Tribunal in Judgment 1547, [...] and unions must clearly be provided with sufficient facilities, within the framework of negotiated agreements or, if need be, administrative regulations, to enable them to carry on their activities. It is legitimate, however, for the organisation to ensure that the facilities made available to a body officially representing the staff as a whole are not misused for the benefit of a union, or any other body having its own assets and representing only part of the staff."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1547
Keywords:
administrative instruction; case law; collective bargaining; facilities; freedom of speech; grounds; liability; limits; organisation's duties; purpose; refusal; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; staff union agreement; written rule;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Staff Committee's access to the organisation's internal electronic mail system was withdrawn after the organisation made an objection on technical grounds following the mass distribution of documents. "The Staff Committee is responsible for [...] maintaining "suitable contacts between the competent administrative authorities and the staff", which necessarily implies the availability of adequate means of communication within the organisation... Nevertheless, the incident mentioned by the [organisation] involving the mass distribution of a union report [...] shows that some degree of control is necessary, without jeopardising the Staff Committee's freedom of expression and speech."
Keywords:
acceptance; consequence; facilities; freedom of speech; liability; official; organisation; publication; purpose; rebuttal; refusal; report; staff union;
Judgment 2227
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was informed by a letter of 22 December 1999 that the administration reserved the right to approve the photocopying and distribution of circulars issued by staff representatives. "The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 911 [...], 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. Herein lies the problem in this case: the Office considers it has a general right to authorise, which it maintains it uses only with moderation, but the limits of such authorisation are by no means clear. The Tribunal cannot set aside a general decision on the grounds that it does not offer the guarantees that are in any case available to staff members on the basis of the general principles of international civil service law, as established and interpreted by the Tribunal and other international administrative tribunals. These principles confine the administration's scope of action to cases where 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. And it is in the light of these principles that the letter of 22 December 1999 [...] should be interpreted. a refusal to grant an authorisation may be regarded as lawful only if it complies with the above principles."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911
Keywords:
acceptance; case law; collective rights; exception; freedom of speech; general decision; general principle; iloat; international civil service principles; interpretation; judicial review; limits; official; organisation; outside activity; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; tribunal;
Judgment 2100
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"As to the remarks [the complainant] attributes to the chair of the Staff Union Committee and the quarrel she says arose between herself and a member of the staff union about union matters, the Tribunal endorses the Director's response to her that "the administration could not act without interfering in union matters"."
Keywords:
moral injury; organisation's duties; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2079
92nd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant, who was only fit to work 75 per cent of normal hours, was able to work only as a staff representative. Such activities were restricted to 50 per cent of normal working hours but he nevertheless "request[ed] to work at 75 per cent on staff committee duties [which] was in fact a request to devote 100 per cent of office time to that function. As such it was manifestly inadmissible."
Keywords:
complainant; limits; medical fitness; part-time employment; refusal; request by a party; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2058
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant asks that the defendant be ordered to publish a denial of the accusations made in [a flash published by the staff union]. It is not, however, for the Tribunal to issue such an injunction."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; moral injury; publication; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff union;
Judgment 1912
88th Session, 2000
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The organisation amended the Staff Regulations. The text adopted by the Council was a simplified version of the text that had been submitted for the opinion of a committee having staff representatives. The organisation maintains that the Chairman of the Staff Association indicated that the opposition to the text on the grounds of principle was unlikely to be removed by the simplified text and that another meeting of the Committee would be useless. "The fact that the Chairman of the Staff Association has made his position known does not mean that there is no need to consult an official body, made up of representatives of the administration and the staff who are entitled to make their views known quite independently and whose opinions can develop in the course of a discussion."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; amendment to the rules; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1806
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-17
Extract:
The Tribunal does not support the practice of the organization of not letting employees in the personnel unit hold office on the Staff Committee in order to avoid any risk of conflict of interest. The decision to offer the complainant a post in the personnel unit should never have been attached to the condition of resigning as president of the Staff Association. "It is important both to protect the right of association and to maintain a staff association's independence."
Keywords:
condition; freedom of association; offer; organisation's duties; post; practice; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 1767
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
The texts provide that one member of the Selection Committee "must be the Staff Association's President or his nominee'. [...] Here the Staff Association refused to take part in the selection. Although a representative of the Association is free to take part, his refusal to do so cannot make the Committee's choice void. If that were so, the Staff Association's representative would have a veto [...]."
Keywords:
consequence; participation; refusal; right; selection board; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1596
82nd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"A legal opinion obtained for the purpose of litigation will ordinarily be privileged. But the defendant does not deny having made the text of the legal opinion available to representatives of the Staff Committee. Having been given the text without any condition or rider, the Staff Association was entitled to make copies available to its members."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; exception; staff union;
Judgment 1547
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
"The EPO had no formal agreement with the union about facilities such as the distribution of a summons to a meeting. But it admitted to the Appeals Committee that its consistent practice since 1992 had been to distribute any unsealed unofficial internal mail, whether private or not, save any text containing a personal attack on someone. Was such usage binding in law? [...] The plain expectation of the staff was that the EPO would deliver notices from their union without let or hindrance." Therefore the complaints succeed.
Keywords:
binding character; discretion; facilities; flaw; freedom of association; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; practice; staff union; staff union activity;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Precedent has it that an organisation has some latitude in affording facilities to a staff union and its decisions are not subject to judicial review. That is not so, however, where it is charged with breach of freedom of association. The Tribunal will indeed interfere if the effect of the impugned decision is to hamper the freedom of speech that any union must enjoy. Refusal to deliver invitations to a union meeting is unquestionably a breach of the privacy of mail and of the freedom of speech that is part and parcel of freedom of association."
Keywords:
case law; discretion; facilities; flaw; freedom of association; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; staff union; staff union activity;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The claim by Mr. C. to an award of damages to the union is irreceivable because his complaint is in his own name."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff union;
Judgment 1542
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"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." Insofar as the present complaint purports to be made on behalf of a trade union it is irreceivable.
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; contract; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; status of complainant;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"This complaint, which seeks the grant of staff union facilities [...], does concern the exercise of the freedom of association that Article 30 of the Service Regulations guarantees. So the Tribunal is competent ratione materiae under Article II(5) and (6)(a) of its Statute, whereby it is open to any official - even one whose employment has ceased - who alleges breach in substance or in form of the Staff Regulations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) AND (6)(A) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 30 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; facilities; freedom of association; iloat statute; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; status of complainant; vested competence;
Judgment 1520
81st Session, 1996
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Organization objects "that the complainants are just acting as a front for the Staff Association and fall foul of the precedents that declare complaints by such associations to be irreceivable: see for example Judgment 911. [The Tribunal finds that] the complainants have filed complaints in their own name and are quite free to claim rights as officials of the WTO by the means at their disposal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1451
79th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"In Judgment 1932 - submits the [organisation] - the Tribunal held under 18 and 24 that [...] a suit, [filed in the general interests of the civil service,] of which the hallmark is action by staff associations or agents professing to represent them, does not form part of the system of individual appeal that the organisations which have recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction commonly provide for in their rules and that the Tribunal's own Statute contemplates. The Tribunal need not revert to that case law since this is not such a complaint. It has been filed by several officials with the commendable aim of making the proceedings simpler, and each of them is defending his own individual interests, even though they are the same as the others'. The objection [to receivability for being a 'collective' complaint] fails."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1392
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1369
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
It is in the light of such precepts that the Tribunal rules below on the case of Eurocontrol. After years of conflict with the staff and a spate of litigation uncertain in outcome and - as the Director General properly observed - adverse in effect, Eurocontrol came round to a cooperative approach by concluding the agreement of 9 January 1992. By virtue of its contractual nature it is a source of law which in the interests of both sides the Tribunal regards as material.
Eurocontrol is right in pleading that the collective procedure set up under the agreement cannot supersede each staff member's defence of his own rights. A collective agreement, even though concluded with staff associations acknowledged to be representative, does not divest the staff member of the safeguards he enjoys under the Staff Regulations. By the same token there is nothing to keep him from relying on a collective agreement even if, not being a member of a staff association, he is not himself privy to it. Such indeed are consequences that flow from freedom of association and the principle of equal treatment.
Keywords:
collective agreement; collective rights; equal treatment; freedom of association; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; staff union; staff union agreement;
Consideration 30
Extract:
Ever since Eurocontrol signed an agreement with the union "the staff have had access through their representatives to the relevant information and have been able to look at proposals in close cooperation with management and in keeping with the procedure for consultation. The organisation was therefore not required to state again reasons which it had already revealed in the consultations."
Keywords:
collective bargaining; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; limits; procedure before the tribunal; staff union; staff union agreement;
Judgment 1315
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Vide Judgments 1147, consideration 4, and 1269, consideration 13.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1269
Keywords:
case law; collective rights; iloat statute; locus standi; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1193
73rd Session, 1992
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant submits that the abolition of his post was unlawful in that it was an abuse of authority: the whole exercise was just a trick to get rid of him as a punishment for his defence of the staff's rights and was therefore in breach of his right of association. He further submits that the decision was taken in disregard of essential facts: since the duties of his post continue to be performed there was no need to abolish it. "The complainant fails to show that the impugned decision [...] was ultra vires or otherwise unlawful. His challenge on this score is rejected."
Keywords:
abolition of post; freedom of association; staff union;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
