|
|
 |
|
|
Staff union activity (531,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff union activity
Total judgments found: 30
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4551
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest modifications made with respect to the use of mass emails within the Office.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; email; freedom of association; plenary judgment; staff union activity;
Consideration 12
Extract:
Since the freedom of communication, information, and speech includes the right to choose the proper means, the Organisation is not allowed to impose certain means (such as, in the present case, the dedicated intranet webpage) rather than others (the mass emails). This is particularly true where the means offered (or imposed) are more complicated and less viable than the other ones technically available, or are even under the supervision of the Organisation itself. In the present case, the alternative means offered by the Organisation consisted in an intranet webpage on the Organisation’s website. This is, manifestly, a less viable means of communication and, moreover, it is under the supervision and the management of the Organisation, and not under the complete control by and availability for the staff representatives. It must also be recalled that according to the Tribunal’s case law, the ability of a body representing the staff to circulate emails to all staff members is not “a privilege”. Such body “has a legitimate right to avail itself of this facility, unless there is good cause for restricting it” (see Judgment 3156, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3156
Keywords:
email; intranet webpage; staff union activity;
Judgment 4281
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that he was deprived of an opportunity to be promoted for the sole reason that he exercised a part-time staff union mandate. The grievance he thereby expresses should, in the Tribunal’s view, be regarded as an allegation of misuse of authority.
In Judgment 3357, under 16, the Tribunal found that “the existence of [...] 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, 3357
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; personal prejudice; staff union activity;
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 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 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; 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;
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 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 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; condition; equal treatment; freedom of association; general principle; injury; official; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2228
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Staff Committee, which is a statutory body of the organisation, made the facilities derived from its access to the organisation's internal electronic mail system available to the Staff Union. Its access to the system was withdrawn. "The organisation [submits that] the facilities offered to the Staff Committee cannot be made available to the Staff Union without creating confusion with regard to the attribution of roles and responsibilities, even if those in charge of one of these bodies are also, or may be, in charge of the other. This does not mean to say that the unions should not be provided with certain facilities by the organisations. On the contrary, their freedom of expression should not be hampered, as indicated by the Tribunal in Judgment 1547, [...] and unions must clearly be provided with sufficient facilities, within the framework of negotiated agreements or, if need be, administrative regulations, to enable them to carry on their activities. It is legitimate, however, for the organisation to ensure that the facilities made available to a body officially representing the staff as a whole are not misused for the benefit of a union, or any other body having its own assets and representing only part of the staff."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1547
Keywords:
administrative instruction; case law; collective bargaining; facilities; freedom of speech; grounds; liability; limits; organisation's duties; purpose; refusal; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; staff union agreement; written rule;
Judgment 2227
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was informed by a letter of 22 December 1999 that the administration reserved the right to approve the photocopying and distribution of circulars issued by staff representatives. "The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 911 [...], that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. thus any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned. Herein lies the problem in this case: the Office considers it has a general right to authorise, which it maintains it uses only with moderation, but the limits of such authorisation are by no means clear. The Tribunal cannot set aside a general decision on the grounds that it does not offer the guarantees that are in any case available to staff members on the basis of the general principles of international civil service law, as established and interpreted by the Tribunal and other international administrative tribunals. These principles confine the administration's scope of action to cases where there is gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives. And it is in the light of these principles that the letter of 22 December 1999 [...] should be interpreted. a refusal to grant an authorisation may be regarded as lawful only if it complies with the above principles."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911
Keywords:
acceptance; case law; collective rights; exception; freedom of speech; general decision; general principle; iloat; international civil service principles; interpretation; judicial review; limits; official; organisation; outside activity; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; tribunal;
Judgment 2100
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"As to the remarks [the complainant] attributes to the chair of the Staff Union Committee and the quarrel she says arose between herself and a member of the staff union about union matters, the Tribunal endorses the Director's response to her that "the administration could not act without interfering in union matters"."
Keywords:
moral injury; organisation's duties; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2079
92nd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant, who was only fit to work 75 per cent of normal hours, was able to work only as a staff representative. Such activities were restricted to 50 per cent of normal working hours but he nevertheless "request[ed] to work at 75 per cent on staff committee duties [which] was in fact a request to devote 100 per cent of office time to that function. As such it was manifestly inadmissible."
Keywords:
complainant; limits; medical fitness; part-time employment; refusal; request by a party; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 1806
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-17
Extract:
The Tribunal does not support the practice of the organization of not letting employees in the personnel unit hold office on the Staff Committee in order to avoid any risk of conflict of interest. The decision to offer the complainant a post in the personnel unit should never have been attached to the condition of resigning as president of the Staff Association. "It is important both to protect the right of association and to maintain a staff association's independence."
Keywords:
condition; freedom of association; offer; organisation's duties; post; practice; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 1547
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
"The EPO had no formal agreement with the union about facilities such as the distribution of a summons to a meeting. But it admitted to the Appeals Committee that its consistent practice since 1992 had been to distribute any unsealed unofficial internal mail, whether private or not, save any text containing a personal attack on someone. Was such usage binding in law? [...] The plain expectation of the staff was that the EPO would deliver notices from their union without let or hindrance." Therefore the complaints succeed.
Keywords:
binding character; discretion; facilities; flaw; freedom of association; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; practice; staff union; staff union activity;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Precedent has it that an organisation has some latitude in affording facilities to a staff union and its decisions are not subject to judicial review. That is not so, however, where it is charged with breach of freedom of association. The Tribunal will indeed interfere if the effect of the impugned decision is to hamper the freedom of speech that any union must enjoy. Refusal to deliver invitations to a union meeting is unquestionably a breach of the privacy of mail and of the freedom of speech that is part and parcel of freedom of association."
Keywords:
case law; discretion; facilities; flaw; freedom of association; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; staff union; staff union activity;
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 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 1437
79th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant was transferred against his wishes to another unit. Thereis no reason to regard his transfer as hidden disciplinary action or to attribute it to his staff union work, it having been taken in the organization's interests.
Keywords:
abuse of power; evidence; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; staff union activity; transfer;
Judgment 1363
77th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 40
Extract:
The complainant was charged with serious misconduct and dismissed. He alleges that the EPO imposed a penalty that was too severe and disproportionate in order to get back at him for his staff union work. "There is not a shred of evidence to support the charge of 'union-bashing' he levels against the EPO. What prompted the disciplinary proceedings was his pursuit of private business for his own enrichment and in abuse of his position as an official."
Keywords:
bias; breach; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; outside activity; proportionality; staff member's duties; staff union activity;
Judgment 958
66th Session, 1989
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant alleges that the reason why he was not appointed to a P.5 post as principal reviser was that "the Director-General disliked him as a militant member of one of the two staff associations". On the evidence before the Tribunal, the plea fails.
Keywords:
bias; candidate; competition; staff union activity;
Judgment 576
51st Session, 1983
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The only point in favour of the complainant's claim [he says that he was transferred because of his trade union activities] is the suddenness of the decision, which came only a few days after he had attended meetings as a staff representative. "But the coincidence does not suffice to establish any misuse of authority. The circumstances of his [transfer] may be regrettable, but they have no effect on the lawfulness of the decision."
Keywords:
abuse of power; lack of evidence; misuse of authority; staff union activity; transfer;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
