ILO Instruments (685,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: ILO Instruments
Total judgments found: 3

• Judgment 4482

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  This case presents a situation where a remedy, which may intrude into the exercise of power by the Administrative Council, is appropriate to protect a fundamental right of a member of staff and, indeed, all members of staff which was a term of their appointment as officials of the EPO. The adoption of those parts of the new rules concerning elections by decision CA/D 2/14 entailed non-observance of that term of appointment. There can be no doubt that freedom of association is a well-recognised and acknowledged universal right which all workers should enjoy. It is recognised as a right by the Tribunal (see Judgment 4194). It is a right recognised in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Article 2(a), as an obligation for all ILO Member States arising from the very fact of their membership in the ILO. Freedom of association is a right recognised by the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 22, and also by the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 8.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4194
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; freedom of association; ilo instruments; international instrument; terms of appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3726

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The Tribunal has explained its purview when a party relies on the violation of a right under an ILO Convention as follows:
  “The complainant contends that the ILO acted in breach of its own international instruments when it did not renew his contract. He specifically refers to ILO Convention No. 158 and Article 3.2(c) of ILO Recommendation No. 166. [...] [T]hese instruments create obligations for Member States and do not apply to the relationships between the ILO and its officials. These latter relationships are governed by the terms of the contracts into which the person entered with the ILO and by the rules and regulations of the ILO, as interpreted and applied by the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 2662, under 12).” (Judgment 3448, consideration 10.)
  However, the prohibition on forced labour is not confined to the Forced Labour Convention. It is also one of the fundamental principles and rights at work, as recognized in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 1998, which is accepted by all ILO Member States through their membership of the ILO. The Tribunal already considered in Judgment 1333, consideration 5, that:
  “The law that the Tribunal applies in entertaining claims that are put to it includes not just the written rules of the defendant organisation but the general principles of law and basic human rights.”
  Accordingly, the complainant’s claim for compensation on the ground that she was subjected to compulsory labour and labour exploitation will be considered.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1333, 2662, 3448
  

  Keywords:

  applicable law; forced labour; ilo instruments;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3448

  
  119th Session, 2015
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The complainant contends that the ILO acted in breach of its own international instruments when it did not renew his contract. He specifically refers to ILO Convention No. 158 and Article 3.2(c) of ILO Recommendation No. 166. He submits that these provide authority for the proposition that when a contract for a specified period is renewed on one or more occasions it is deemed to be a contract of employment of indeterminate duration. There is no merit in this submission as this statement is not applicable to a person who is employed on the type of contract on which the complainant was employed. In the second place, these instruments create obligations for Member States and do not apply to the relationships between the ILO and its officials. These latter relationships are governed by the terms of the contracts into which the person entered with the ILO and by the rules and regulations of the ILO, as interpreted and applied by the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 2662, under 12). This aspect of the complaint is unfounded as these do not create for the complainant a contract of indeterminate duration.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2662
  

  Keywords:

  ilo instruments;