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

Collective bargaining (526, 527,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Collective bargaining
Total judgments found: 19

  • Judgment 3067


    112th Session, 2012
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    "[T]he very purpose of a conciliation procedure, which is to endeavour to resolve a dispute between the parties amicably, implies that the conciliator may have to take account of considerations of fairness or advisability. In this respect, such a procedure is fundamentally different from proceedings before the Tribunal, whose task is plainly not to explore possible settlements between the parties and which essentially gives a ruling in law."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; competence of tribunal; difference; equity; purpose; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2878


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

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
    "[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841

    Keywords:

    breach; collective bargaining; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • 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 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 2584


    102nd Session, 2007
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; breach; collective bargaining; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension of contract; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;



  • 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 2129


    93rd Session, 2002
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    "A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; collective bargaining; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2097


    92nd Session, 2002
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "If the contracts are valid and enforceable and not in breach of any applicable staff rule or principle of international civil service law, the Tribunal has no power to reform them or to remake the bargain which the parties themselves have chosen to make."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; amendment to the rules; applicable law; collective bargaining; competence of tribunal; contract; iloat; international civil service principles; official; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "Most contracts are entered into because both parties think it is to their economic advantage to do so. Where there is great disparity in bargaining power [...] the law will impose constraints upon the more powerful. In the international civil service that is one of the functions of the staff rules, and where these are inadequate, the Tribunal will intervene to redress the balance through the application of general principles of international civil service law."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; contract; difference; enforcement; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; right; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2066


    91st Session, 2001
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."

    Keywords:

    case law; collective bargaining; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2039


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Precedent says that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of the complainants' rights. Complainants may therefore go straight to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to decide on an issue within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see Judgments 1829, [...], 1968, [...], and the numerous judgments cited therein). However, a complainant can make use of this possibility only where he has done his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1674, [...] under 6(b), and 1970 [...]). In general, a request for information on the status of the proceedings or the date on which a decision may be expected is enough to demonstrate that the appellant wants the procedure to follow its normal course, and gives grounds for alleging unjustified delay if the authority has not acted with the necessary diligence. However, there are circumstances in which it is unclear whether the procedure has been abandoned or whether the staff member has implicitly consented to the suspension of his appeal in law or in fact. In such cases, the case law says that the staff member must indicate clearly if he wants the procedure to continue. For example, the Tribunal found in one case that a staff member had not met this requirement because an internal appeal he had filed was not referred to the internal appeals body of the organisation, the administration having taken steps to reach an agreed settlement to the dispute. As the staff member had not sought the continuation or renewal of the procedure, it was found that he had not pursued his appeal "diligently" and so did not qualify to file a complaint directly with The tribunal (see Judgment 1970). Similarly, in a case in which the internal appeal had been followed by negotiations in order to reach a settlement, it was found that the staff member was not justified in turning to the Tribunal without first indicating either that the procedure should follow its course in parallel with the negotiations or that it should be taken up again without further ado, and then waiting a reasonable time to see what happened (see Judgment 1674 under 6(b))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1829, 1968, 1970

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; case law; collective bargaining; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 1775


    85th Session, 1998
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant claims that a binding contract did exist between the Organization and himself, despite the silence of the Organization on his counter-offer regarding the amount of his salary. The Tribunal considers that "[it cannot] be said that the Organization's reply [...] constituted by its silence on that score an acceptance of the complainant's counter-offer. Silence does not normally imply consent and the circumstances here are not such as to give rise to any inference in the complainant's favour; the terms of the Organization's [reply] are fully compatible with the conclusion that the question of salary was still unresolved and subject to further negotiation."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; collective bargaining; contract; failure to answer claim; offer; salary;



  • Judgment 1699


    84th Session, 1998
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal does not accept that a request for review precludes a negotiated settlement. There is no reason why a staff member cannot keep to the time limit laid down by the Staff Regulations and Rules and at the same time negotiate. And he will be in a stronger negotiating position if he has lodged a timely appeal."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; internal appeal; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 1369


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

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

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    Ever since Eurocontrol signed an agreement with the union "the staff have had access through their representatives to the relevant information and have been able to look at proposals in close cooperation with management and in keeping with the procedure for consultation. The organisation was therefore not required to state again reasons which it had already revealed in the consultations."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; limits; procedure before the tribunal; staff union; staff union agreement;



  • Judgment 1339


    77th Session, 1994
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Both the complainant and his wife are international civil servants. They work for different organisations. The complainant claimed a share of the leave for which the rules provide in the event of childbirth. "But parental leave is something to be negotiated and agreed with the employer: it may not be claimed as of right. The WHO's rules provide for the grant of maternity leave, not of paternity or parental leave, and until the latter is agreed upon or prescribed the right to it does not exist."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; maternity leave; provision; right; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1020


    69th Session, 1990
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Consultation does not require negotiation, let alone approval. The staff representatives merely state their opinion, and it is not binding on the administration." The Tribunal is satisfied that in the instant case the required consultations took place.

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consultation; difference; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 1019


    69th Session, 1990
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Vide Judgment 1020, consideration 2.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1020

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consultation; difference; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 381


    42nd Session, 1979
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    A provision in the Staff Rules "expressly provides that the Director-General shall consult with his staff [...]. This makes it difficult to imply a further term requiring him not merely to consult but to negotiate".

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consultation; enforcement; organisation's duties; provision; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The obligation put upon an employer to negotiate changes in salary may be a condition of the contract of employment, but it would have to be specifically expressed in the individual contract or very clearly implied. "Merely because the term is contained in a collective agreement, it cannot be deemed ipso facto to be incorporated in the individual contracts of all those affected by the collective agreement."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; collective bargaining; contract; organisation's duties; provision; salary; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 380


    42nd Session, 1979
    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "If the end-product of the discussions [...] is a unilateral decision, 'consultation' is the appropriate word. If it is a bilateral decision, i.e. an agreement, 'negotiation' is appropriate. Decisions are reached after consultation; agreements after negotiation."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consequence; consultation; decision; difference;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The experts were not in agreement about the methodology or the salary-scale figures. "In these circumstances it would be natural for [the Director] to contact his staff association in order to ascertain their views and, if necessary, negotiate with them to reach an agreed figure. This is something which a [director] might do even if contact was not prescribed by the Staff Regulations."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; no provision; organisation's duties; reckoning; salary; scale; staff union;

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    The question is whether the duty of consultation for which provision is made in the statutory texts had been modified by the practice of the preceding ten years or more and expanded to embrace negotiation. "If negotiation is different from consultation, it is difficult to see how the change could be made otherwise than by an amendment made in accordance with the Staff Regulations."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consultation; no provision; organisation's duties; practice;

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    Vide Judgment 381, consideration 8.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 381

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consultation; enforcement; organisation's duties; provision; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    The object of negotiation is compromise. "This object would be frustrated if either party began with the determination not to make any concession in any circumstances, just as the object of consultation would be frustrated if the decision-maker began with a determination not to be influenced by anything that might be said to him. On both these hypotheses there would be a lack of good faith."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consultation; good faith; purpose;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    To establish that there was a promise to negotiate, the complainants rely upon the facts and reasoning contained in an opinion given personally by the members of the Tribunal. In this opinion the members, who were not confined within the limits of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, reached the conclusion that the agreement recognised that there would be prior negotiation. "The Tribunal sees no reason to differ from this conclusion." The complainants have thus justified the foundation of their statements concerning their promise to negotiate.

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; collective bargaining; competence of tribunal; iloat; promise; staff union agreement; tribunal;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "Negotiation starts from equality of bargaining power [i.e. legal equality; economic strength may be unequal]; consultation supposes legal power to be in the hands of the decision-maker, diminished only by the duty to consult."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; consultation; difference;

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    Vide Judgment 381, consideration 6.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 381

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; collective bargaining; contract; organisation's duties; provision; salary; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 349


    40th Session, 1978
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The direct superior was a wage bargainer in meetings on conditions of work. "Things can be said in free negotiations about conditions of work in a manner which cannot be used in answer to an order which has to be obeyed. A negotiator does not need to be armed with disciplinary sanctions; he is as free as any other individual to break off discussions with anyone whose manner he finds intolerable. It is because a superior officer cannot break off relations with his subordinates that sanctions against disrespect have to be provided."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; disciplinary measure; insubordination; supervisor;


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top