Staff representative (534, 535, 659,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff representative
Total judgments found: 103
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
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 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 3921
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As to the complainant’s right to maintain these proceedings on behalf of the staff of the Global Fund in his capacity as a member of the Staff Council, there is some support for the proposition he can do so in earlier jurisprudence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2919, consideration 5). However that judgment does not reflect the Tribunal’s current case law (see, for example, Judgments 3515, consideration 3, and 3642, considerations 9 to 12 and 14). The adoption of the new arrangements in relation to salary structure and grading system was a general decision requiring implementation for each staff member. That general decision cannot be challenged by an individual staff member even if that individual is a member of the staff committee unless and until the general decision is implemented. That is not to say, it cannot be challenged when implemented by challenging a payslip that reflects its implementation. A recent example concerned a salary freeze where the complainants were able to challenge the general decision by challenging its implementation in a payslip. While the general decision to freeze salaries was not immediately reflected in the payslips (the complainants’ salaries remained the same and the freeze would only operate in the future), the Tribunal was able to conclude, in that case, that the general decision as implemented in the payslips was liable to cause injury because the decision to freeze salaries would necessarily negatively impact on the salaries in due course (see Judgment 3740, consideration 11). Nonetheless, 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, Judgment 3168, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3168, 3515, 3642, 3740
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision; locus standi; scale; staff representative;
Consideration 9
Extract:
While good management practice would suggest such consultation is desirable, the case law of the Tribunal which has insisted on consultation and set aside decisions where there has been none (see, for example, the discussion in Judgment 3883, considerations 20 to 21) has been rooted in a legal obligation imposed by a normative legal document (for example, a staff rule or regulation) that the organisation consult a specified body in a specified way (see, for example, Judgments 3736, consideration 7, and 3449, consideration 7). It will be the terms of the normative legal document that will provide the yardstick by reference to which the content of the obligation to consult will be measured and whether it has been satisfied. Insofar as the complainant alleges that there has been a failure to consult without pointing to any legal requirement for such consultation, he has no cause of action and, in this respect, the complaint is irreceivable. In this respect the complainant does not, as the Global Fund argues, point to any non-observance of the terms of his appointment or of the Staff Regulations, to use the language of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3449, 3736, 3883
Keywords:
advisory body; cause of action; patere legem; staff representative;
Judgment 3885
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to defer the promulgation of the revised post adjustment multiplier for staff of the UN system working in New York.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]here is no provision in the Tribunal’s Statute which allows a member of a Staff Committee to represent, before the Tribunal, other officials adversely affected by a decision (see Judgment 3642, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3642
Keywords:
staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 3775
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the Office Procedure on “Rental and car advances for internationally-recruited officials”, on the grounds that the Staff Union was not consulted before it was issued.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; consultation; staff representative;
Judgment 3671
122nd Session, 2016
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges two service orders.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Although the complainant’s claims for the setting aside of these texts have been allowed, as she is acting in her capacity as a staff representative, she is not entitled to moral damages (see Judgments 3258, under 5, and 3522, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3258, 3522
Keywords:
moral injury; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; general decision; staff representative;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law establishes that insofar as an official alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which she or he was a member, she or he has a cause of action which gives her or him standing to bring a complaint (see, for example, Judgment 3546, under 6). In the instant case, the complainant is a member of the Staff Council and she submits that the latter was not consulted before Service Order No. 13/03 was published. In accordance with the case law, the complainant therefore has a cause of action before the Tribunal, even though this service order constitutes a regulatory measure which may ordinarily be challenged only indirectly in the context of an appeal lodged against an individual decision based on it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3546
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 3666
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to promote him in 2012.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant [...] raises the issue that Eurocontrol, by failing to implement rules supporting the Memorandum of Understanding, made his promotion impossible and that the JCD’s statement on this issue showed bias in favour of Eurocontrol. In its unanimous opinion, the JCD stated in paragraph 3 that “the Memorandum of Understanding merely state[d] in Article 10 of its Annex that union representatives should not be discriminated against other staff because of their trade union affiliation or activities. Of course, [Eurocontrol] must abide by the principle of equality of treatment and ensure that the activities carried out by trade union representatives do not have any prejudicial effect on their career. They should all have a supervisor and their performance be appraised regularly as requested by the Tribunal [in Judgment 2869], which is the case for [the complainant] since 2008.” The Tribunal considers this statement to be correct. By assigning the complainant to a post in which 50 per cent of his activity was devoted to the tasks listed in his job description (with the remaining 50 per cent devoted to his trade union activities), he was reinserted into the office hierarchy which allowed for periodic performance appraisals by a line manager. This restored the equality of treatment between the complainant and other staff members as requested by the relevant provision of the Memorandum of Understanding and by Judgment 2869.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2869
Keywords:
equal treatment; staff representative; staff union activity;
Judgment 3642
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the procedure followed to fill an Administrative Assistant position.
Considerations 9-12
Extract:
The jurisprudence of the Tribunal on the standing of elected staff representatives to take proceedings before the Tribunal in a case such as the present is not uniformly clear. Recently in Judgment 3557, consideration 3, the Tribunal indicated that in certain circumstances staff representatives may challenge the appointment of another official, but can only do so if they allege breach of their own individual rights. In another recent case, Judgment 3546, the Tribunal concluded it was unnecessary to consider whether a staff representative had standing generally to challenge the extension of the appointment of another official because the complainant, who was a staff representative, had had a right to be advised of the proposal to extend the appointment and that right had been allegedly violated. That was viewed as sufficient to give the complainant standing.
On the other hand, the right of a staff representative to file a complaint challenging the appointment of an official has been recognised as an aspect of the right of an elected staff representative to bring proceedings on behalf of a staff committee with a view to preserving common rights and interests of staff (see Judgment 2791, consideration 2, and Judgment 2755, consideration 6).
However ultimately, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the related question of a person’s right to invoke that jurisdiction should be determined by reference to the Tribunal’s Statute. Article II addresses both questions. The Tribunal is conferred with jurisdiction to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials of the International Labour Office and other organisations which have submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as well as complaints alleging non-observance of such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations as are applicable to the case. Having identified and defined the jurisdiction, Article II identifies in paragraph 6, the class or classes of people who can invoke that jurisdiction. That paragraph provides that “[t]he Tribunal shall be open […] to the official” and to any person to whom the “official’s rights have devolved” on death together with any other person entitled to some right of a deceased official. A legal normative document conferring jurisdiction on a court should not be narrowly construed. However there is little room to doubt that the expression “shall be open to the official” is a reference to the official whose terms of appointment have allegedly not been observed or, in relation to whose circumstances (in “a case”), applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations have allegedly not been observed. This is reinforced by the reference to “the official’s rights”, in the singular, in relation to rights that have devolved on death. That is to say, standing is directed to the vindication or enforcement of the rights of an individual officer. The clause does not cast the net any wider in relation to who can invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Similarly in Article VIII, dealing with remedies, the focus of the Article is the provision of relief or a remedy to an individual complainant on the assumption that the relief or remedy will overcome the effect or consequences on that complainant of the non-observance by either undoing the effect of the defendant organisation’s conduct (by rescission) or the payment of compensation to the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2755, 2791, 3546, 3557
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative; successor;
Consideration 14
Extract:
It might be thought all officials have a “right” to have the organisation which employs them comply with and observe the organisation’s Staff Regulations irrespective of whether any failure to comply or non-observance has any bearing on their own situation as an official of the organisation. If this were so, all officials would have standing to commence proceedings in the Tribunal in relation to any non-observance of the Staff Regulations. It is highly improbable that the Statute intended this result. But is an elected staff representative able to enforce this “right” even though all other officials cannot unless affected by the non-observance? There is no basis in the language or structure of the Statute or by reference to the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal, to suggest this is so. Consistent with the entire focus of the Statute, the right of an elected representative to enforce the Staff Regulations for the benefit of all staff is limited to circumstances where the provision (which has allegedly not been observed) confers a right on the elected representative as a member of staff. It might be a right limited to the staff representative (such as the right to be consulted) or it might be a right enjoyed by all staff (such as the right to freedom of association).
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 3615
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, in his capacity as a staff representative, the EPO’s practice on outsourcing.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; en banc review; outsourcing; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Judgment 3557
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is obvious that the complainant does not have standing to submit such a claim. He does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute. While in certain circumstances staff representatives may challenge the appointment of another official, in so doing they must allege a breach of their own individual rights, which might include, for example, the right to be consulted (see, for example, Judgments 2236, under 4, and 3449, under 4) or the right to compete for the post (see, for example, Judgment 2755, under 6). In the present case, the complainant does not clearly articulate any violation of his rights as a member of the selection board."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2236, 2755, 3449
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; selection board; staff representative;
Judgment 3546
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the principle of extending the active service of a staff member beyond the age of 65 and the terms thereof.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is unnecessary to determine whether the complainant’s status as a staff representative in itself gives him a cause of action to challenge the administrative decisions at issue in this case. Indeed, the Tribunal notes that, at the material time, he was a member of the Joint Negotiating Committee, and in his complaint he alleges a breach of the Office’s duty, under Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations, to inform that Committee of any decision to retain an official at a grade equal to or higher than P.5 in active service beyond the normal retirement age. Insofar as he thus alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which he himself was a member, the complainant has cause of action which gives him standing to bring this complaint (see, for example, Judgment 2036, under 4, and Judgment 3053, as well as the analysis thereof in Judgment 3291, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2036, 3053, 3291
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 3544
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the practice followed in granting appointments without limit of time to officials in the Director and Principal Officer category.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Insofar as he [...] alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which he himself was a member, the complainant has a cause of action which gives him standing to bring this complaint (see, for example, Judgment 2036, under 4, and Judgment 3053, as well as the analysis thereof in Judgment 3291, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2036, 3053, 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; staff representative;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The ILO’s argument that, in the past, Staff Union representatives had never thought it necessary to challenge the practice in question and had apparently even implicitly acquiesced to it cannot negate the complainant’s right to rely on the cause of action thus recognised."
Keywords:
cause of action; staff representative;
Judgment 3522
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the lawfulness of two communiqués suspending the application of a circular on the protection of the dignity of staff.
Judgement keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; intervention; joinder; respect for dignity; staff representative;
Judgment 3515
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, in their capacity as staff representatives, impugn the decision to pay a collective reward to permanent or contract employees in active service during 2011.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fringe benefits; general decision; joinder; staff representative;
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaints. It does so on the basis that the complainants were challenging a decision of general application that had not been individually and prejudicially applied to them. It refers, in particular, to Judgment 1852, consideration 2, and Judgment 3291, consideration 8, and quotes passages from each. It also refers to Judgments 61, 92, 103 and 622.
In their rejoinder, the complainants refer to Judgment 1147, consideration 4, Judgment 1618, consideration 7, Judgment 2649, consideration 8, Judgment 2791, consideration 2, and Judgment 2919, consideration 5, in support of the proposition that a staff committee member can challenge a general decision which adversely affects staff or groups of staff. Also, and more specifically, they argue that even if a staff representative cannot challenge the substantive provisions of a general decision, the representative is always in a position to challenge a breach of procedure.
The complaints are irreceivable. The general decision in CA/D 17/12 is plainly a decision that would have required implementation. When that occurred staff aggrieved by the implementation could have pursued their grievances internally with the possibility, if the grievance was unresolved, of pursuing it before the Tribunal. However a staff representative cannot challenge a general decision governing all officials which will require individual implementing decisions. Judgment 3427 (at considerations 35 and 36) is a recent illustration of a case in which complaints were dismissed as irreceivable on this basis. To the extent that Judgment 2919 (which the complainants rely upon), indicates otherwise, it is at odds with the general jurisprudence of the Tribunal. There is a an oblique reference in the complainants’ pleas that there had not been proper consultation with the General Advisory Committee (GAC) and this is said to render the complaints receivable or at least the complaint of Mr T., who was a member of the GAC. However that issue was not raised in the internal application for review and cannot be raised in the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1618, 1852, 2649, 2791, 2919, 3291, 3427
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 3504
120th Session, 2015
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to authorise his participation, in his capacity as a staff representative, in a workshop and training course organised by the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; freedom of association; staff representative; training;
Judgment 3449
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal cancelled the disputed competitions because the ILO rendered the recruitments unlawful.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action of staff representative; competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; flaw; joinder; selection procedure; staff representative; vacancy notice;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[T]he complainant also acted in his capacity as Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee of the Office. According to the case law, members of a staff committee may bring a complaint to preserve common rights and interests, these being understood to mean enforceable legal rights and interests derived from terms of appointment or under Staff Regulations which have not necessarily been breached in respect of the member of the staff committee who files a complaint with the Tribunal.
In order for a complaint submitted on behalf of a staff committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which an organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected to it by an employment contract or who have the status of officials. This condition is a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 3342, under 10, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3342
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; locus standi; staff representative;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant seeks redress for the injury he has suffered without, however, explaining the nature of that injury. Since [...] his personal interests are not at stake in these cases, this claim will be dismissed."
Keywords:
moral injury; staff representative;
Judgment 3427
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
As concerns the complaints brought by staff members in their respective staff representative capacities, the determinative issue centres on the nature of the contested decisions. In Judgment 1451, under 20, and later in Judgment 1618, under 5, the Tribunal drew a distinction between “a general decision setting out the arrangements governing pay or other conditions of service” that “take the form of individual implementing decisions” that each employee may later challenge and those decisions that do not give rise to implementing decisions and involve matters of common concern to all staff. In the latter case a challenge to the general decision by a staff representative may be receivable.
However, in the present case, it is clear that the contested decisions are decisions of general application subject to individual implementation. Until a decision of general application is implemented it cannot be said to have been applied in a prejudicial manner to a staff member and, consequently, as has been consistently held, cannot be attacked (see Judgment 2822, under 6, citing Judgment 1852). The fact of filing their complaints in their staff representative capacities does not overcome the fact of the nature of the contested decisions being ones of general application that at the material time had not been implemented. Accordingly, the complaints filed by the staff members in their representative capacities are irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618, 1852, 2822
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 3414
119th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to remove his name from an e-mail distribution list on the ground that he had been released from his regular duties to work as President of the Staff Council.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; freedom of association; staff representative;
Judgment 3357
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[T]he complainant manifestly has no reason to insinuate that the decisions concerning him were prompted by a wish to discriminate on account of his role as a staff representative.
Contrary to the view apparently taken by the complainant, who merely comments in this respect that “it [cannot] be proven” that his activities in that capacity were not borne in mind by the Organisation, or that “the possibility [cannot] be ruled out” that they were, the existence of such bias, which would constitute a misuse of authority, may not be presumed. It is incumbent upon the official who intends to rely on a plea of this nature to furnish at least some prima facie evidence in support thereof; mere allegations which are moreover purely speculative are immaterial here (see, for example, Judgments 1775, under 7, 2019, under 24, 2927, under 16, or 3182, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 2019, 2927, 3182
Keywords:
equal treatment; staff representative;
Judgment 3346
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting as Staff Committee representatives in the General Advisory Committee, challenge the President’s interpretation of the GAC’s opinion regarding pension contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; consultation; staff representative;
Judgment 3345
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting as elected staff representatives, in their individual capacities as staff members and on behalf of thirty-six staff members employed under “long-term short-term contracts”, challenge the appropriateness of employment under such contracts and claim certain rights for such employees.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he claims of the Staff Council were a request for a change of policy and policy issues of this type are not justiciable (see Judgment 3225, consideration 6). This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the request was made at a high level of abstraction."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3225
Keywords:
ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; locus standi; staff representative;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
