ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Freedom of association (529, 530, 531, 532,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Freedom of association
Total judgments found: 27

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4201


    128th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Staff Association to reject his application for legal support in connection with a complaint he had filed with the Tribunal.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence of tribunal; freedom of association; ratione materiae; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4194


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the refusal to consult them concerning the use of external contractors.

    Considerations 7-9

    Extract:

    Each staff member of an international organisation has a right to freely associate and the organisation has a corresponding duty to respect that right. This is a necessary incident of their employment (see, for example, Judgment 911, consideration 3). On the assumption that, as an incident of freedom of association, an organisation has a duty to meet or satisfy a staff representative’s legitimate request for information as an element of a broader obligation to consult (see, for example, Judgment 2919, consideration 15), and fails to do so, then a staff representative would, in that individual capacity and on this assumption, have a cause of action to enforce that duty.

    There is no issue that, at the time these complaints were filed, each of the complainants had ceased being a member of the Munich Staff Committee even if one or a number may have held another office as a staff representative. Thus, when the proceedings were commenced in the Tribunal, the foundation of their cause of action had been removed. Their complaints are irreceivable.

    This is not a barren technical conclusion. If their complaints were receivable, the merits of the case and the grant of relief would depend on the complainants demonstrating an ongoing right to be provided with the information and a right, if it existed, to continue to require the EPO to do what had been earlier requested. An immediate and probably insuperable problem would arise concerning relief if the complainants were able to establish, on the merits, they had been and were entitled to some or all of the information they had sought or had a right to request that certain things be done. But as they are no longer members of the Munich Staff Committee, they are not now entitled to any information of the type sought in the letter of 17 September 2009 nor to assert a right that the EPO do certain things. However this conclusion is not a barrier, more generally, to the enforcement of a right a member of a staff committee may have to be provided with information or a right to require the organisation to act in circumstances where the membership of the committee fluctuates over time. That is because when a staff representative has asserted a right arising from that status, the assertion or vindication of that right in proceedings before the Tribunal can be pursued by a newly elected staff representative as a “successor in title” (see Judgment 3465, consideration 3).
    That would ordinarily involve the relevant committee approving the new staff representative assuming the role of the former staff representative. If approval was given then all steps taken by the former staff representative could be treated as steps taken by the new staff representative. In this way, steps taken by the former staff representative to pursue the grievance by way of internal appeal can be treated as steps taken by the new staff representative. The prosecution of a complaint in the Tribunal by the new staff representative would not be defeated by an argument that the new staff representative had not exhausted internal means of redress. She or he would have done so vicariously because of the actions of the former staff representative.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 911, 2919, 3465

    Keywords:

    cause of action; duty to inform; freedom of association; internal remedies exhausted; staff representative;



  • Judgment 4155


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to allow all staff to vote when members of the Staff Council are elected.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    election; freedom of association; practice; staff representative;

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    In November 2014, the Director General sent a message to the staff effectively declaring that Staff Regulation 8.1 required all staff to be able to vote in an election for the Staff Council. Thereafter the Administration, guided by an opinion of the JAG, took steps to alter the status quo ante and bring about the election of members of the Staff Council by all staff rather than only those who are members of the Staff Association. [...]
    The circumstances prevailing immediately before November 2014 were that the body described in Staff Regulation 8.1 was constituted by members of the Staff Association who had been elected to the Association’s Staff Council under the rules of the Association. This involved, at least implicitly, an acceptance by the Administration that Staff Regulation 8.1 permitted or authorised the constitution of the Staff Council in this way. What, in effect, WIPO has done, is adopt and assert an interpretation of Staff Regulation 8.1 which is partisan in the sense that it is an interpretation which was obviously aimed at disadvantaging the Staff Association and its members, having regard to the long-standing practice concerning the constitution of the Staff Council, and favouring the Administration in the sense that it does not have to deal with individuals, as members of the Staff Council, with, necessarily, what is almost certainly significant authority deriving from the membership of the Staff Association and their election by that membership. This constitutes an abuse of power.

    Keywords:

    freedom of association; misuse of authority; practice;



  • Judgment 4148


    128th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for five working days.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; freedom of association; suspension;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    If comments by a staff member made in the context of a debate about employment matters are defamatory of another staff member (in the sense that the comments have injured a person’s reputation or tarnished her or his good name), the fact that they are defamatory does not, by itself, deny the staff member making the comments the protection afforded by the principle of freedom of association. So much is apparent from the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 3106, consideration 9. In that judgment the Tribunal noted in consideration 8 (citing Judgment 274, consideration 22) that the existence of a freedom of discussion and debate, inherent in the freedom of association, can have the consequence that when feelings run strong the discussion and debate can spill over into extravagant and even regrettable language. There are, of course, limits on the freedom of discussion and debate that the Tribunal noted in consideration 8 of Judgment 3106. In the present case, the GBA and the Director-General did take into account the complainant’s right to freedom of expression within the umbrella of the freedom of association but found that the language was inappropriate. However, the complainant clearly had strong and not obviously illegitimate views about the procedure finally adopted involving the use of the Clinical Attendance Memo form and the role of the President of the Staff Association as a member of the working group. The complainant was able to criticise him and was not obliged to do so, within the umbrella of the freedom of discussion and debate inherent in the freedom of association, in entirely temperate or polite language. The Tribunal is satisfied that what the complainant said was comprehended by her right to freedom of association and was thus not misconduct.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 3106

    Keywords:

    defamation; freedom of association; freedom of speech;



  • Judgment 4043


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    Ordinarily an international organisation would have no legitimate interest in the lawfulness or otherwise of an agreement between a staff association and its members. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3106, consideration 7, the principle of freedom of association “precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities.” This is all the more so if the agreement concerns the funding of legal advice in the pursuit by staff members of grievances against the international organisation. Whether the agreement was lawful or not would be a matter for the parties to the agreement, namely the staff association and the member concerned. The question of lawfulness would only arise if the legal efficacy of the agreement was contested by one of the parties. There is nothing to suggest that either the complainant or Mr C. had any reservations about the legality of the agreement when it was signed and plainly Mr C. was to derive a benefit under it. Moreover, as a matter of principle, there is nothing untoward about a staff association providing funding to a member of the association employed by an international organisation to obtain legal assistance to pursue a grievance against the organisation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 3106

    Keywords:

    freedom of association;

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant was entitled to share the letter with others in SUEPO, as a general critique of the lawfulness of the general agreement. It is well settled that staff representatives must enjoy a broad freedom of speech (Judgment 3156, consideration 12) and it was not unlawful for the complainant, in the circumstances of this case, to disseminate the letter [...] as he admitted doing.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3156

    Keywords:

    freedom of association; freedom of speech; staff representative;



  • Judgment 4002


    126th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing as clearly irreceivable his grievance complaint against several members of the Staff Council.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    freedom of association; staff representative;

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    In Judgment 3106, under 7 and 8, the Tribunal discussed the principle of freedom of association and the implications of that principle in terms of the relationship between an organization and the staff union. The Tribunal observed:
    “[T]hat principle has two important aspects. The first is that it precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. [...] Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that ‘[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute’, and that trade union activities ‘likewise constitute an area that is ““prima facie”” outside the Director-General’s jurisdiction’, although ‘there may be exceptional cases’.
    8. The second aspect of freedom of association [...] is that it necessarily involves freedom of discussion and debate. [...] This notwithstanding, the Tribunal has acknowledged that the freedom of discussion and debate is not absolute and that there may be cases in which an organisation can intervene if, for example, there is ‘gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives’ (see Judgment 2227, under 7). [...]”
    In the present case, given that the actions at issue were all taken by the Staff Council in the context of the regulation of its own activities and the regulation of the conduct of one of its members, a consideration of the merits of the grievance complaint was clearly beyond the mandate of the JGP. Moreover, a consideration of the merits by the JGP would have violated the principle of freedom of association.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100, 2227, 3106

    Keywords:

    freedom of association;



  • 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:

    freedom of association; staff representative; training;



  • 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:

    freedom of association; staff representative;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[I]t has long been recognised that all officials of international organisations have a right to associate and an implied contractual term in the appointment of each that the relevant organisation will not infringe that right (see, for example, Judgment 496, consideration 6). Moreover the principle of freedom of association is infringed if a person is subject to detriment or disability because of her or his activities within a staff association or the Staff Council (see, for example, Judgments 2704, consideration 6, and 3084, consideration 19). In the present case the complainant does contend he is being discriminated against and this has arisen by virtue of him occupying the office of President of the Staff Council. This plea is sufficient to engage the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is, of course, another question whether this plea can be made on the facts. But the Tribunal is competent to hear the complaint and rejects the IAEA’s contention that it is not."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 2704, 3084

    Keywords:

    competence; freedom of association;



  • Judgment 3106


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100

    Keywords:

    breach; competence; complaint allowed in part; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The second aspect of freedom of association that is relevant to the present case is that it necessarily involves freedom of discussion and debate. It was pointed out in Judgment 274, under 22, that “this freedom, when feelings run strong [...] can spill over into extravagant and even regrettable language”. This notwithstanding, the Tribunal has acknowledged that the freedom of discussion and debate is not absolute and that there may be cases in which an organisation can intervene if, for example, there is “gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives” (see Judgment 2227, under 7). Within this context, it is convenient to consider the allegedly defamatory nature of the e-mail in question.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2227

    Keywords:

    defamation; definition; freedom of association;



  • Judgment 3084


    112th Session, 2012
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    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 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 2704


    104th Session, 2008
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The principle of freedom of association is infringed if a person is subject to a detriment or disability or is discriminated against because of his or her activities within a staff association or [...] within the Staff Council."

    Keywords:

    breach; cause; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; equal treatment; freedom of association; general principle; injury; international civil servant; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 2672


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

    Considerations 9 and 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 2493


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    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; complaint allowed; 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 of the Tribunal
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1392

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1806


    86th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 15, 16 and 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:

    complaint allowed in part; condition; freedom of association; offer; organisation's duties; post; practice; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 1547


    81st Session, 1996
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 12, 13 and 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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; 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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; discretion; facilities; flaw; freedom of association; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 1542


    81st Session, 1996
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    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 TRIBUNAL'S 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 1369


    77th Session, 1994
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "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 rights; equal treatment; freedom of association; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; staff union; staff union agreement;



  • Judgment 1193


    73rd Session, 1992
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 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;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top