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 3344
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints filed by the complainants acting as elected staff representatives and as staff members and challenging the lawfulness of an investigation procedure manual are dismissed as filed out-of-time.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A staff association ordinarily has no separate legal identity. Nonetheless, it cannot be assumed that it is necessary to notify all members of the executive in order to notify the executive of an association of a decision nor can it be assumed that the time of notification is the time at which the last of the members of the executive is, in fact, notified."
Keywords:
date of notification; staff representative;
Judgment 3343
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, acting as a staff representative, challenges the Organisation’s direct placement of a contract with an external consulting firm.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; locus standi; outsourcing; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Unless it can be shown that the alleged violation of the rule has a direct and immediate bearing on the employment status or rights of employees, the staff representative does not have standing to bring the complaint. In this case there is no such violation. It follows that in her capacity as a staff representative, the complainant clearly does not have standing to bring this complaint."
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Considerations 2 and 3
Extract:
"On the issue of receivability, the complainant takes the position that she is acting to protect the collective interests of the staff. She contends that these interests are not limited to matters such as remuneration and other working conditions, but also include the broader interest of ensuring that the EPO respects its own laws. She claims that other than staff representatives, there is nobody either within or outside the EPO in a position to challenge a direct placement.
It is clear that this complaint is irreceivable and it will be dismissed. Chapter 2 of Title II of the Service Regulations provides a mechanism for staff representation at the EPO including the establishment of a Staff Committee, its functions (Article 34), composition (Article 35) and competence (Article 36). However, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2649, under 8, “in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the [EPO] by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2649
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 3342
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting as members of the Staff Committee, challenge the competence of the President of the Office to appoint Vice-Presidents on an ad interim basis.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The common rights and interests identified by the complainants may arguably be legitimate interests in a broad political or organisational sense. However they are not rights or interests of a character that are justiciable in the Tribunal."
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Considerations 10 and 11
Extract:
"Earlier judgments decide[d] that members of a Staff Committee can invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to enforce rights conferred on them by their terms of appointment or by the Service Regulations. So much is clear from Judgment 1147, consideration 4. This has been recognised in a number of judgments since which have accepted that individual officials can act as representatives to preserve what have been described as “common rights and interests” (see Judgment 2562, consideration 10). However the expression “common rights and interests” is a reference to enforceable legal rights and interests derived from terms of appointment or under the Service Regulations. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2649, consideration 8, “in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employment status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”. A similar statement of the principle is found in Judgment 3115, consideration 3.
That approach was comparatively recently followed by the Tribunal in determining one of a number of issues about receivability raised in the context of the employment by the EPO of external contractors (see Judgment 2919, consideration 8). Of particular relevance in that judgment for present purposes was the Tribunal’s consideration of a challenge sought to be made to the engagement of external contractors. The complainants, who were permanent employees of the EPO and members of the Munich Staff Committee, sought to raise the question of whether permanent posts should be established in order to carry out the tasks otherwise undertaken by external contractors. The Tribunal said at consideration 6:
“As the creation of permanent posts rests exclusively within the President’s discretion under Article 10(2)(d) of the European Patent Convention, this case is not a complaint alleging the non-observance, in substance or in form, of terms of appointment or the Staff Regulations and is, therefore, irreceivable.”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 2562, 2649, 2919, 3115
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; locus standi; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Judgment 3341
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting as successive Chairmen of the Central Staff Committee (CSC), impugn the President’s decision not to submit to the Administrative Council a CSC document regarding the protection of human rights within the Office.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; locus standi; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Judgment 3278
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision confirming the classification of his employment in a new grade bracket.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; plenary judgment; post classification; staff representative;
Judgment 3258
116th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants argued that their rights of staff representatives had been violated, but their claim for pecuniary compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainants challenge final decisions maintaining earlier decisions not to grant the compensation claims submitted by the complainants, who considered that they had suffered injury on account of violations of the rights of staff representatives.
"By their very nature, such violations of the rights of staff representatives cannot, under any circumstances, give rise to any right to financial compensation in favour of an individual staff member or his or her successors in title."
Keywords:
compensation; decision; injury; right; staff representative;
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 keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; freedom of speech; staff representative;
Judgment 3088
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; staff representative;
Judgment 3084
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; promotion; reclassification; staff representative;
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 3054
112th Session, 2012
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint dismissed; contract; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 2983
110th Session, 2011
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"An international organisation's duty to protect a staff representative is [...] not confined to defending the person concerned in the event that legal proceedings are instituted against him/her. It may include, for example, the duty to assist the staff representative in any legal steps that this person might wish to take in his/her own defence against threats, insults or defamation."
Keywords:
organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; staff representative;
Judgment 2952
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant does not allege the non-observance of any of the terms of his appointment or of any of the Staff Regulations applicable to him. Nor does he claim that the Agency has infringed his rights as a member of the Staff Committee. [...] Further, he does not claim to have suffered any loss, damage or other injury, and does not point to any decision affecting him directly or which would have legal consequences for him individually. Thus, he has not established any cause of action [...] or raised any matter that may be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
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 2869
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, a staff union representative, challenged the Agency's decision not to promote him in the course of the 2007 promotion exercise. He claimed that he was among the most senior staff eligible for promotion and that the Administration had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Tribunal found in his favour.
"[T]he present situation has the appearance of an abuse of discretion. The complainant's situation is extreme (i.e. being promoted much less frequently than the average) yet there has been no valid reason given for the continued nonpromotion. According to Eurocontrol's reasoning, without a breach of procedure or obvious flaw, the Agency does not have to explain its decisions. This is not correct. Precedent has it that "there is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound" (see Judgment 1355, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1355
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union activity;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[I]t is not enough that the decision may be reasonable and in good faith; it must also appear to be reasonable and in good faith. [...] [A]ll decisions regarding the promotion or non-promotion of staff union representatives must be, and must appear to be, made impartially so as to avoid any hint of preference or prejudice."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; discretion; equal treatment; good faith; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; respect for dignity; staff representative; staff union activity;
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;
Judgment 2791
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that individual members of the Staff Committee must have the power to file suit as representatives of that body. 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."
Keywords:
case law; collective rights; official; right of appeal; staff representative; staff union; status of complainant;
Judgment 2766
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is not so much that applicants have an absolute right to confidentiality, but rather a right to the reasonable protection of their privacy. The Tribunal finds that the participation of the staff representative, in an observer capacity and not taking part in the Selection Board's meetings, does not unreasonably affect the complainant's privacy."
Keywords:
competition; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right; selection board; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 2755
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant challenges an appointment on the grounds that it was made without a competition, or even a call for candidatures. She filed her complaint both as an ILO official and in her capacity as Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee. The defendant contends that the complaint is irreceivable insofar as it has been filed on behalf of the Staff Union Committee. "The Tribunal considers that the debate concerning the receivability of the complaint, insofar as it was filed by the complainant in her capacity as Chairperson of the Office's Staff Union Committee, has no bearing on the outcome of proceedings, since the complaint is receivable having been filed by an official with locus standi."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 2751
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints to the Tribunal led to Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had made defamatory statements on the complainant. "[T]he EPO [...] contends that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent of the claim for retraction of the defamatory statements. In this regard, it relies on Judgment 1635 where the Tribunal explained that it was not competent to order a written apology, as requested in that case. In Judgment 2720, also delivered this day, the Tribunal recognised, under 17, that publication of statements defamatory of a staff member by an international organisation gives rise to a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the harm done to the staff member's reputation. Moreover, the Tribunal held in that case that it could order performance of that obligation pursuant to Article VIII of its Statute. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to order the retraction of a defamatory statement."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1635, 2514, 2720
Keywords:
apology; competence of tribunal; defamation; iloat statute; moral injury; order; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff representative;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The intention with which a statement is made is not necessarily determinative of the question whether a statement that is wholly irrelevant is also one that can serve no proper purpose." The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints were considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had stated that, by reason of the time he had spent providing legal assistance to staff members, the complainant's work as an examiner had been less satisfactory than it should have been. "That was defamatory. It was also inconsistent with the duty of the EPO to respect the complainant's dignity. In the context of the other comments that were within the limits of the privilege that attaches to proceedings before the Tribunal, it carried the threat of possible administrative consequences for the complainant's employment. Such a remark can serve no proper purpose. Accordingly, it was not privileged and the complainant is entitled to seek relief with respect to it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2514
Keywords:
breach; compensation; consequence; counsel; iloat; intention of parties; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; security of tenure; staff representative;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
