Provision (241,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Provision
Total judgments found: 208
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
For the period 24 June 2002 to 31 December 2003 the complainant was given a fixed-term contract, financed from technical cooperation funds, which was extended until 30 June 2004. The complainant was subsequently given two external collaboration contracts, the second one ending on 31 March 2005. The contractual relationship between the complainant and the ILO ended at that date. "It emerges from an analysis of [the provisions of Circular No. 630] that short-term contracts should be offered in only specific cases and for a limited duration.
Having already obtained a fixed-term contract which had been extended, the complainant could not be recruited under a short-term contract, let alone under an external collaboration contract, to continue performing the same work as he had performed under his fixed-term contract, without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts.
The complainant's last two contracts should therefore be converted into a fixed-term contract."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 630
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; breach; claim; condition; consequence; contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; external collaborator; fixed-term; limits; period; project personnel; provision; separation from service; short-term; written rule;
Judgment 2696
104th Session, 2008
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It was said in Judgment 832 that an acquired right is one that a staff member may expect to survive alteration of the staff rules (see also Judgment 1226). The right may derive from the terms of appointment, the staff rules or from a decision. In Judgment 61 it was said that the amendment of a rule to an official's detriment and without his consent amounts to a breach of an acquired right when the structure of the contract of appointment is disturbed or there is impairment of any fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which the official accepted appointment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 1226
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; breach; condition; consequence; contract; decision; definition; injury; official; provision; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;
Judgment 2662
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant contends that there was a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. "Reliance on the Convention is misplaced as it is not applicable to international organisations. The complainant's rights are those derived from the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and from the general principles of law applicable to such organisations."
Keywords:
breach; complainant; enforcement; general principle; international civil service principles; international instrument; organisation; provision; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2657
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 2649
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897
Keywords:
breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2647
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
An external candidate was appointed to the post the complainant had applied for. The complainant contends that, contrary to the Staff Regulations, the applications of candidates already in the Organization's service were not given priority of consideration over those of external candidates. "It is convenient to recall that the Tribunal held in Judgment 107, under 1, that:
'although the Organization is bound to have full regard to the qualifications and experience of persons already in its service, this does not mean that it must necessarily always appoint them in preference to outside applicants. If this privilege were automatically to be granted to the serving staff, the Organization might be led to take decisions contrary to its own interests, a situation which was certainly not intended by those who drafted the Staff Regulations. The position is that persons already in the service of the Organization have priority only if their qualifications appear to be at least equal to those of other candidates.'
Those principles were duly taken into account in the selection process, which was carefully and correctly conducted by the Organization, and while the qualifications and experience of the complainant are to be noted, they do not automatically give her a right of precedence over other candidates for the advertised post."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 107
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; condition; decision; general principle; internal candidate; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; priority; procedure before the tribunal; professional experience; provision; purpose; qualifications; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2646
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed at the end of his probationary period. He states that despite his repeated requests he was never transferred to another directorate. "As to the case law, the complainant relies on Judgment 396 in support of [this] assertion [...]. The issue in that case was whether the head of the Organisation had correctly applied a particular provision of the Staff Regulations authorising him to terminate the appointment of a probationer at any time in the Organisation's interests. The Tribunal stated that '[a]s a rule, before a [probationer] is dismissed thought should be given to transferring him to some other post on trial, especially if he is junior in rank'. It must, however, be noted that this was said in the context of a misunderstanding between the probationer and his supervisor and the Tribunal's observation that such a misunderstanding does not necessarily justify instant dismissal. In the present case, the stated reason for the dismissal was poor performance.
To conclude that in situations of poor performance a staff member on probation will always be entitled to a transfer prior to being dismissed undermines the whole purpose of probationary terms. In some circumstances a transfer may be the proper option, but the circumstances of the present case do not warrant this finding."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396
Keywords:
case law; discretion; enforcement; executive head; general principle; grounds; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; probationary period; provision; purpose; refusal; request by a party; right; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; termination of employment; transfer; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
Judgment 2643
103rd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a British national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner and had his partnership registered under the Civil Partnership Act applicable to British citizens. The ITU refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for determination of the benefits pertaining to that status. "The Tribunal has accepted in several recent judgments that same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590) and unions taking the form of 'registered partnerships' must be recognised where the national legislation applicable to the staff member concerned allows persons who have contracted such unions to be treated as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550). The important difference between the present case and those previously decided lies in the fact that the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules explicitly define the concept of spouses as denoting husband and wife in a large number of provisions, and that, contrary to the situations examined in Judgments 2549 and 2550, the ITU refuses to accept that same-sex unions lawfully contracted under the national legislation of the official concerned may be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. It follows that the defendant was not wrong in asserting that, in the light of the case law and the applicable Regulations and Rules as they currently stand, the Secretary-General was barred from giving the term 'spouse' the broad interpretation requested."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; marital status; provision; purpose; refusal; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2636
103rd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; investigation; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2625
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant, a retired civil servant, asks the Tribunal to declare unlawful some measures applying to pensioners. "The provisions in question are regulatory texts applying to all retired employees of the Office. Since they entered into force long ago the complainant may challenge their lawfulness only by appealing against a decision applying those provisions which actually causes present damage to his personal interests (see in particular Judgments 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, and 2459, under 7(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2379, 2459
Keywords:
cause of action; claim; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; provision; retirement; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
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; 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 2582
102nd Session, 2007
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The IOOC recognised the Tribunal's competence by a letter of 19 September 2003 addressed to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO). "Although the complainant's appointment with the IOOC ended prior to that recognition, which was approved by the ILO's Governing Body at its 288th Session in November 2003, the Tribunal considers that it may properly hear the present case brought by a former official of the IOOC who, subsequently to that recognition, has alleged a breach of statutory provisions."
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; date; declaration of recognition; executive body; executive head; provision; separation from service; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2573
102nd Session, 2007
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Notification of non-renewal or non-extension of a contract is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms. However, the Tribunal's case law has it that that notification is to be treated as a decision having legal effect for the purposes of Article VII(1) of its Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; contract; decision; effect; extension of contract; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; provision; refusal;
Judgment 2567
101st Session, 2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[W]here a doubt arises regarding the meaning which should reasonably be given to the clause of a contract, according to the principle of good faith the clause should be interpreted to the detriment of the party which drafted the contract."
Keywords:
contract; general principle; good faith; intention of parties; interpretation; provision;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[I]t must be recalled that according to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal '[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 Tribunal will on its own motion examine whether this condition of receivability is met (see Judgments 60, 1082 and 1095).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 60, 1082, 1095
Keywords:
application of law ex officio; complaint; condition; decision; iloat; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The Organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable because the internal appeals, although timely filed with the President of the Office, had not yet been considered by the Appeals Committee at the time when the complaints were filed. "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). [...] The complaints are [therefore] receivable."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of EPO Service Regulations
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; complaint; date; executive head; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; patere legem; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028
Keywords:
allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 2556
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Organisation adopted a new method of calculating replacement days granted to inspectors returning from a Chemical Weapons Destruction Facilities inspection because of the inconsistency between the practice with regard to replacement days and the terms of Administrative Directive AD/PER/12. The complainant contested that new method. Because the earlier practice had become in its view "well established", the Appeals Council recommended that the appeal be upheld, the previous practice reinstated and the replacement days that should have been granted in accordance with that practice reimbursed. The Tribunal considers that "[a]s the practice of granting a replacement day for each Saturday, Sunday or official OPCW holiday falling during an inspection period is inconsistent with the terms of AD/PER/12, that practice cannot be elevated to the status of law so as to entitle the complainant to additional replacement days, as was seemingly thought by the Appeals Council."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: OPCW Administrative Directive AD/PER/12
Keywords:
administrative instruction; advisory opinion; compensatory measure; difference; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; practice; precedence of rules; provision; public holiday; reckoning; recommendation; refund; right; written rule;
Judgment 2549
101st Session, 2006
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10, 11 and 13
Extract:
The complainant, a Danish national, was employed by the ILO from 3 January 2002 to 2 January 2005. She had entered into a registered partnership with her same-sex partner. On taking up her functions, she submitted a Certificate of Registered Partnership drawn up in accordance with the Danish Act on registered partnership and asked to be granted dependency benefits, designating her partner as her spouse. Her request was rejected. The Office stated that it was "in a position to recognise same-sex marriages immediately where the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality recognises such marriages." It has in fact recently recognised such same-sex marriages where the national legislation defines same-sex marriages as spousal relationships.
"The question is whether the broad interpretation of the term 'spouse' already given by the Office in the case of a marriage recognised by the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality should have been extended to unions between same-sex partners which are not expressly designated as marriages under the national law of the staff member concerned. The Tribunal feels that a purely nominalistic approach to this issue would be excessively formalistic and is inappropriate in view of the fact that the situation varies from one country to another and that great care must be taken not to treat officials placed in comparable situations unequally: it is not because a country has opted for legislation that admits same-sex unions while refusing to describe them as marriages that officials who are nationals of that State should necessarily be denied certain rights. As pointed out in Judgment 1715 [...], there may be situations in which the status of spouse can be recognised in the absence of a marriage, provided that the staff member concerned can show the precise provisions of local law on which he or she relies. It is therefore necessary to determine whether in the present case the provisions of Danish law enable the complainant and her partner to be considered as 'spouses' in the meaning of the applicable regulations."
After having examined the provisions of the Danish Act on registered partnership, the Tribunal finds that "the Director-General was wrong [...] to refuse to recognise the status of spouse for the complainant's partner [and orders] the ILO [to] give full effect to this ruling by granting the complainant the benefits denied to her during the time of her employment".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1715
Keywords:
analogy; applicable law; burden of proof; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; interpretation; judicial review; marital status; member state; nationality; official; provision; refusal; request by a party; right; same-sex marriage; social benefits; status of complainant;
Judgment 2533
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant suffered a workplace injury at the Organization premises. The results of this seemingly minor accident were catastrophic and the complainant is now permanently and totally disabled and suffers from a rare illness, which has extended up both of the complainant's legs and requires him to use a wheelchair.
"[G]iven the possibly progressive nature of [the illness], the condition may continue to deteriorate seriously. [...] the Tribunal asserts unequivocally that the defendant's obligation to pay the complainant reasonable compensation for the results of his workplace injury is a continuing one and is not affected or diminished by the terms of an insurance policy to which the complainant is not a party."
Keywords:
consequence; disability benefit; handicapped person; health insurance; illness; insurance; invalidity; maximum limit; medical examination; organisation's duties; professional accident; provision; service-incurred;
Judgment 2493
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
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. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
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; 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
