Collective rights (517, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Collective rights
Total judgments found: 18

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  collective rights; complaint dismissed; facilities; lack of injury;
  

  
  
  

• 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 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;
  

  
  
  

• 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 2672

  
  104th Session, 2008
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 9-10

  Extract:

  "A staff association or union is, in essence, a voluntary association of employees and/or others in a relationship pursuant to which they perform services by way of personal exertion, who have agreed together to act collectively [...] to protect and promote their industrial interests. The powers of the association may extend to the protection and promotion of the industrial interests of those who are eligible to belong to the association. Many countries require other formalities including, sometimes, registration under the relevant domestic law. Those laws cannot apply to a staff association or union the membership of which is restricted to international civil servants. However, that is not to say that no formality is necessary for the formation of a staff association or union representing international civil servants.
  For the creation of a staff association or union representing international civil servants, there must, at the very least, be some means of identifying the agreement voluntarily to associate for the purpose of protecting and promoting the industrial interests of members, the terms of that agreement and the means by which it may be varied, both in relation to individual employees and the purposes or objects of the association. [...] [B]ecause it is a voluntary association, there must be an agreement as to the persons by or through whom the association acts, the means by which those persons are selected or elected, the matters in respect of which they have authority to act and the powers that they have in relation to those matters. In the absence of agreement as to each of those matters, the agreement to associate would, in accordance with general principles of law, be void for uncertainty. And to have an agreement covering those matters, there must be rules incorporated in a charter, a statute or some other document to which the members subscribe and by which they agree to be bound."

  Keywords:

  applicable law; collective bargaining; collective rights; effect; freedom of association; freedom of speech; general principle; staff claim; staff representative; staff union agreement; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2585

  
  102nd Session, 2007
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "While it is true, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 2156, that 'elected representatives of the staff enjoy specific rights and safeguards in accordance with the general principles which govern employment relationships in international organisations and which are also generally recognised in national labour legislation', it is still up to the staff member complaining that such specific rights and safeguards have been violated to prove that fact and not merely rely on bald assertions."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156
  

  Keywords:

  breach; burden of proof; case law; collective rights; domestic law; general principle; iloat; official; organisation; request by a party; right; safeguard; staff representative; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• 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 2459

  
  99th Session, 2005
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7(a)

  Extract:

  "The complainants have filed three separate complaints. Each of them asserts that she is acting to defend her own personal freedom of association. This is sufficient to establish that, contrary to the defendant's view, the case does not in fact concern class actions which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear, bearing in mind that Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal makes provision for a system of individual appeals (see Judgment 1392, under 24)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1392
  

  Keywords:

  collective rights; competence of tribunal; complaint; difference; freedom of association; iloat statute;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2387

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The complainant serves as President of the Eurocontrol section of the European Civil Service Federation. He asks the Tribunal to quash an instruction which, he submits, causes him injury and directly affects the interests he must defend as a trade union leader. "The Tribunal finds that the complainant does not show a direct cause of action in this case which would allow him to challenge the disputed instruction, since the latter was applicable only to the staff of CFMU, a body to which he does not belong. Insofar as he pleads in his capacity as trade union leader, he would be entitled to file a complaint with the Tribunal only on the basis of his personal employment relationship with the Agency - for instance by challenging measures which concern him personally on account of his duties - but not in order to defend the collective interests of trade union members. On this point the Tribunal refers to consistent precedent (see, for instance, Judgment 1542 delivered on 11 July 1996)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1542
  

  Keywords:

  administrative instruction; cause of action; collective rights; locus standi; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2315

  
  96th Session, 2004
  Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 22-23

  Extract:

  "There are two aspects to the rule against retroactivity. The first is a rule of interpretation which requires that a provision not be construed as having retroactive effect unless that is clearly intended. The second is a substantive rule of international civil service law which, as explained in Judgment 1589, prevents a retroactive change in the legal status of staff save in limited circumstances [...]. However, to state the rule in this way is not to expose what is meant by 'retroactive'. In general terms, a provision is retroactive if it effects some change in existing legal status, rights, liabilities or interests from a date prior to its proclamation, but not if it merely affects the procedures to be observed in the future with respect to such status, rights, liabilities or interests."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1589
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; case law; collective rights; condition; consequence; date; definition; effect; exception; general principle; international civil service principles; interpretation; non-retroactivity; official; organisation's interest; procedure before the tribunal; provision; publication; purpose; right; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2300

  
  96th Session, 2004
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4(a)

  Extract:

  "A general decision which establishes the obligations and/or rights of a group of officials, without requiring an implementing decision, may be directly challenged; one example of this would be a decision concerning an electronic clocking-in system (see Judgment 2279 [...]). However, such a decision is not challengeable if its terms are not sufficiently clear in themselves to allow a challenge (see Judgment 2258, under 3)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2258, 2279
  

  Keywords:

  case law; collective rights; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; general decision; individual decision; official; staff member's duties; working hours;
  

  
  
  

• 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 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 16

  Extract:

  Eurocontrol questions whether a complainant may rely on a collective agreement between an organisation and its staff. "It is a truth universally acknowledged that the collective agreement is a basic vehicle of social progress, justice and peace. That that is so is due to the International Labour Organization, among others, and to its international instruments such as the right to organise and collective bargaining convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the labour relations (public service) convention, 1978 (No. 151)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1311
  

  Keywords:

  applicable law; collective agreement; collective bargaining; collective rights; competence of tribunal; staff union agreement; working conditions; written rule;
  

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  An international organisation is "free to choose whatever methods or means it likes - be they formal rules or contracts of employment - to define the terms of appointment of staff. But any collective agreement it does conclude becomes part of the law of the international civil service. Signing such an agreement puts it under obligations in law; a member of its staff may plead such obligations in a complaint to the Tribunal; and the Tribunal will review compliance with the letter and spirit of the agreement."

  Keywords:

  collective agreement; collective rights; international civil service principles; judicial review; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; right; right of appeal; staff union agreement; working conditions; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• 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 1147

  
  72nd Session, 1992
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "The Staff Committee, which does not even have personality in law, may not itself appeal. But its members may nevertheless rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Regulations. Indeed that is why Article 34(2) empowers them to enforce their rights. Were that not so the system of staff representation set up by the EPO would prove meaningless. The staff member has a direct interest in making the organisation respect his rights because he derives them directly from his status as such. The contingency is one that Article II of the Tribunal's Statute contemplates. If the EPO were right, a further effect would be to hamper the functioning of a body established under the Service Regulations and acting within the bounds of authority the Regulations set."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
  Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 34(2) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
  
  

  Keywords:

  collective rights; competence of tribunal; locus standi; staff regulations and rules; staff union; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 911

  
  64th Session, 1988
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "According to precedent, a staff association enjoys special rights that include broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents. Like any other freedom, however, freedom of speech has its bounds. A staff association may not resort in public to action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, save that the degree of discretion required of it is not as great as is expected of an individual staff member: both law and practice allow it wider freedom of speech and only gross abuse will be inadmissible."

  Keywords:

  collective rights; duty of discretion; freedom of association; freedom of speech; limits; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 87

  
  15th Session, 1965
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  A staff representative has "the obligation to act solely in defence of the interests of the staff and the strict duty not to abuse these rights."

  Keywords:

  collective rights; limits; right; staff member's duties; staff representative;