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

Receivability of the complaint (76, 77, 78, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Receivability of the complaint
Total judgments found: 682

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 | next >



  • 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 2939


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that a complaint is not receivable unless the internal means of redress have been exhausted. Although the Statute does not expressly allow for any exception to this requirement, the Tribunal's case law is clear that 'where the pursuit of the internal remedies is unreasonably delayed the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, will have been met if, though doing everything that can be expected to get the matter concluded, the complainant can show that the internal appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time' [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1829, 2039

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainants ought to have established that their internal appeal had, in fact, been unduly delayed. Instead of so doing, however, the complainants unilaterally ascertained what in their view would constitute unreasonable delay at the time they filed their appeal. [T]hey did not communicate with the Internal Appeals Committee for the purpose of having the appeal expedited and neither did they make any enquiries to ascertain when the Office's first response would be filed."

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2912


    109th Session, 2010
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the [Tribunal's]Statute, '[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations'. The only exceptions allowed under the Tribunal's case law to this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted are cases where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure, where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant he or she does not have access to the internal appeal body or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, for example, Judgments 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511 and the case law cited therein, and 2582)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511, 2582

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2907


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law as established in Judgments 752, under 4, and 2821, under 9, for example, exceptions may be made to the applicable time limits when an organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 752, 2821

    Keywords:

    good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2903


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 to 11

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the rejection of his second appeal on receivability grounds was incorrect. He argues that the breach of the Organisation's duty of care could only become apparent in the months or years that followed his separation from service and he considers that it had taken a decision against him, i. e. the decision to exclude him from a competition for a post, though it did not convey that decision to him.
    "The Tribunal finds that the complaint is irreceivable. Staff Rule 212.02 provides that a former staff member may bring an internal appeal against administrative decisions in accordance with Staff Regulation 12.1. That latter provision limits the internal appeal procedure to appeals of administrative decisions in relation to the non-observance of the terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules."
    "In the present case, the complaint arises from circumstances occurring after the complainant's separation from UNIDO and, therefore, is excluded by the Staff Regulations and Rules."
    "Further, although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official's terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; internal appeal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; separation from service; status of complainant; time bar;



  • Judgment 2901


    108th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal had occasion to explain in Judgment 456, under 2, the purpose of [the] provisions [of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute] is twofold. Their first aim is to enable an official to defend his or her interests by going to the Tribunal when the Administration has failed to take a decision. Their second aim is to prevent a dispute from dragging on indefinitely, which would undermine the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations. It follows from these twin purposes that, if the Administration fails to take a decision on a claim within sixty days, the person submitting it not only can, but must refer the matter to the Tribunal within the following ninety days, i.e. within 150 days of his or her claim being received by the organisation, otherwise his or her complaint will be irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 456

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's case law [...] allow[s] a complaint against an implied rejection to be deemed receivable, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for filing a complaint, if a particular step taken by an organisation, such as sending a dilatory reply to the complainant, might give that person good reason to infer that his or her claim is still under consideration (see Judgment 941, under 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 941

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2892


    108th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 to 8

    Extract:

    "The ITU argues that the [...] complaint with respect to the complainant's dismissal is [...] irreceivable on the basis that, as he has not pursued his internal appeal following his request [...] for a final review of the decision to dismiss him [...]. [T]he question remains whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules permit an internal appeal once a person has ceased to be a staff member. If they do not, the steps taken by the complainant to initiate an internal appeal were ineffective. More to the point, there were no internal remedies that he could pursue before lodging his complaint."
    "Chapter XI of the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules makes provision for appeals by staff members. [...] There is nothing in Chapter XI of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules to indicate that a former staff member may lodge an appeal as therein provided. [...] In these circumstances, the term "staff member" in Chapter XI is to be construed as restricted to a serving staff member."
    "In Judgment 2840, also a case where the relevant regulations and rules relating to internal appeals referred only to a "staff member" and not a "former staff member", it was held that "where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process". The same is true of a staff member who has either been summarily dismissed or dismissed with such short notice that it is impracticable to commence internal appeal proceedings before the dismissal takes effect."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582, 2840

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; definition; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; official; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vexatious complaint;



  • Judgment 2887


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The letter of 19 December 2007 conveyed the Director- General's reasons and his final decision rejecting the complainant's internal appeal. The subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 did not alter that earlier decision and provided no new grounds for it. Accordingly, it did not give rise to new time limits (see Judgment 2011, under 18). As the complaint was not filed within ninety days of the notification of the final decision dated 19 December 2007, as required by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal's Statute, it is irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011

    Keywords:

    complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Following the adoption by UNESCO of new classification standards, the complainant sought reclassification of her post. The Job Evaluation Committee and a desk audit confirmed that her post was appropriately classified at grade G-6. The Director-General endorsed that grading. The complainant seized the Tribunal but her complaint was dismissed as irreceivable.
    "The complainant's arguments as to the date of the final decision dismissing her internal appeal must be rejected. The letter of 17 October 2007 clearly indicated that the results of the desk audit would be communicated to the complainant together with the final decision. In that context, the letter of 19 December 2007 informing her of those results and of the Director-General's decision that no compensation would be granted and that her post would be maintained at grade G-6 could only be construed as a final decision with respect to her internal appeal. Although it would have been preferable if the letter of 19 December 2007 had expressly stated that it was a final decision and indicated that it could only be challenged by a complaint filed with the Tribunal, the subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 still allowed the complainant sufficient time within which to file a complaint."

    Keywords:

    complaint; decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2882


    108th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Although rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must not be construed too pedantically or set traps for staff members who are defending their rights. If these staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. Consequently, a staff member who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal (see Judgments 1734, under 3, and 1832, under 6). [...] The fact that an appeal is mistakenly submitted directly to the Appeal Board, as occurred in this case, cannot entail the irreceivability of the appeal. The Appeal Board has a duty to forward to the Director General any document which is intended for his attention and which has been sent to it in error, in order that it may be treated as a request for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 1832

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; organisation's duties; proportionality; purpose; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2878


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner as the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 21 months, which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability (see Judgment 2841, under 9). Therefore the Tribunal awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2841

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; delay; internal appeal; material damages; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2868


    108th Session, 2010
    South Centre
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 12 and 13

    Extract:

    "On the issue of receivability, the Centre contends that [...] the complainant was late in filing his appeal with the Board, and that his complaint is therefore not receivable."
    "The Tribunal rejects this objection to receivability. [T]he Chairman of the Board advised the complainant that the Board had decided to grant his request for review of the administrative decisions despite the late filing of the notice of appeal. [T]he Appellate Body accepted the appeal and, as no objection was then taken, it is not open to the Centre to object before the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; delay; internal appeals body; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2866


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    The complainant challenged the Organisation's decision not to grant her the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 72 (1) of the Service Regulations. The Tribunal held that she had failed to adduce cogent evidence that she fulfilled the requirements for the granting of the said allowance.
    "The EPO argues that although it was outside the time contemplated in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations, a decision on the complainant's appeal was taken by the President and the appeal was forwarded to the Internal Appeals Committee prior to the complaint being filed. Accordingly, there was no longer an implicit rejection of the complainant's appeal and Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal's Statute does not apply. In its view, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 533, under 5, the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that the internal means of redress have not been exhausted."
    "The EPO's reliance on Judgment 533 is misplaced. In the present case, by the EPO's own admission the decision was not taken within the time provided in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2562, under 6:
    "The EPO cannot be heard to argue that the complainant has failed to exhaust internal means of redress when the sole reason for his failing to do so was the EPO's own failure to abide by its own Service Regulations and to follow the timelines under Article 109(2). [...]"
    Accordingly, the complaint is receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 533, 2562

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; direct appeal to tribunal; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2863


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
    "The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
    It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency

    Keywords:

    complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 2856


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that since the claim is now moot it is irreceivable. The Tribunal observes that a plea of mootness is not an issue of receivability. As a matter of law, a claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy. Whether or not there is a live controversy is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal. Thus, even if a claim is moot it may still be receivable."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2853


    107th Session, 2009
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6, 7 and 8

    Extract:

    The difference as to the complainant's performance rating was not resolved in internal grievance proceedings and the complainant filed an internal appeal. Having received no response, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Registry of the Tribunal, stating that he wished to file a complaint.
    "It is fundamental that a litigant cannot pursue the same claim before different adjudicative bodies at the same time. Normally, the litigant will be forced to elect the forum in which he or she intends to proceed. That did not happen in the present case. Nonetheless, the complainant pursued his internal appeal to finality and, thus, must be taken to have elected to pursue internal remedies rather than to proceed at that stage before the Tribunal on the basis of an implied rejection of his internal appeal. However, that does not mean that the complaint is irreceivable."
    "[When] the complainant [decided] to pursue internal remedies [...], [his] complaint had already been filed and it was receivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute. Moreover, he then had a cause of action, as his claim was not satisfied until 13 December 2007."
    "Even though the complaint became without object on 13 December 2007, it was receivable when filed and the complainant then had a cause of action. Accordingly, he is entitled, in these circumstances, to the costs associated with its filing, even though not requested in the complaint. However, he is not entitled to costs in respect of subsequent pleadings which were filed after his decision to pursue his internal appeal. There will be an award of costs in the amount of 500 Swiss francs, but the complaint must otherwise be dismissed."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; costs; direct appeal to tribunal; duplication of proceedings; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2837


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "[A]rguments raised before internal appeals bodies can be developed in a complaint before the Tribunal, but the complaint cannot include new claims (see, in particular, Judgments 429, under 1, 452, under 1, and 1380, under 12)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 429, 452, 1380

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2832


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 8

    Extract:

    The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
    "It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583

    Keywords:

    appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2831


    107th Session, 2009
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 4

    Extract:

    The internal appeal, which the complainant lodged on 27 August 2007 against a decision dated 23 May 2007, was rejected on 18 October 2007 on the grounds that it was time barred. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside the decision of 18 October 2007.
    "In reality the internal appeal was filed within the three-month period laid down by the Staff Regulations. The complainant received the decision of 23 May 2007 on 24 May 2007. The period for lodging an appeal began to run on the next day, i.e. 25 May 2007. It expired on 25 August 2007 which, being a Saturday, was not a working day at WIPO. The time limit for submitting an appeal was therefore extended until the next working day, in other words Monday, 27 August 2007, the date on which the internal appeal was filed.
    It follows that the decision of 18 October 2007 that the internal appeal lodged by the complainant was irreceivable must be set aside.
    Since the complainant succeeds, he shall be awarded 5,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the injury which he has suffered [...]."

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; saturday; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2829


    107th Session, 2009
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 5

    Extract:

    The complainant filed an appeal with the WIPO Appeal Board challenging the decision to suspend him from duty. The Board held that the appeal was irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule, inasmuch as it had already issued an opinion on the measure of suspension and no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter. The Director General also deemed the appeal irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule.
    The Tribunal considers that "[t]he res judicata rule applies to decisions of judicial bodies, but not to opinions or recommendations issued by administrative bodies. The Director General was therefore obviously wrong to cite this rule as the basis for declaring the internal appeal irreceivable on the grounds that the Appeal Board had already given an opinion on the suspension and that no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter."
    [...]
    "The Organization shall pay the complainant 3,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the moral injury which he suffered owing to the fact that the merits of his internal appeal were not examined."

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; allowance; compensation; complaint allowed; executive head; general principle; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; res judicata; suspension;



  • 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;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.08.2020 ^ top