06.25.17
Systemic Injustice at the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Causes Serious Harm to Complainants’ Health, Including EPO Complainants
If the International Labour Organisation (ILO) does not get its act together, it will find itself facing a storm of criticism too
Guy Ryder, Director-General of ILO
Summary: The high human cost of ILO’s failure to fulfill its stated mission while pretending that it has things under control (that is clearly no longer the case, especially as far as EPO cases go)
IN only a few days from now ILO will release judgements regarding EPO staff, but as we recently demonstrated, ILO is increasingly complicit [1, 2] and is consistently failing to deliver justice, not even enforce justice. It’s a farce!
“Do Dutch authorities care to realise that ILO is not a recourse to justice?”ILO is, in my personal view (based on a lot of documents seen but not published), defunct. It is in many ways in an implicit allegiance with Team Battistelli. They cover each other’s backs. ILO does absolutely nothing to stop the regime at this stage. If anything, it occasionally compliments this regime. It almost attempts to legitimise the regime. SUEPO attempted to respond to this in a diplomatic fashion (maybe too amicable), but ILO deserves scrutiny if not public shaming.
Over the years I’ve seen (but never published) ILO mistreating complainants. Do Dutch authorities care to realise that ILO is not a recourse to justice? It’s a joke, it’s a placeholder if not mere varnish on a system of systemic injustice — an entrapment to those who work in international organisations. All ILO leads to is drainage of one’s personal savings (on legal fees that are typically paid in vain, characteristically with unemployment in the interim).
“It’s harmful to people’s morale and detrimental to their health.”ILO’s failures have more severe consequences than financial. It’s harmful to people’s morale and detrimental to their health.
A recent diagnostics, explained one reader to us, is “aggravation of my known chronic occupational disease.” By giving the complainant a very short amount of time to respond to a massive document, the complainant suffered a lot, as the following letter explains:
“I did not find a lawyer for my case against the state until now,” we got told, and “unlikely that I will find one still.”
In the meantime, the complainant explained, the “illness worsened during my last 30-days term with the ILOAT” and there has been no reply from the ILOAT until now.
So much for looking after labour…
What is ILO good for anyway?
Apparently, the cryptic rules of the EPO are known to too few lawyers in order for them to help. Can Dutch politicians still pretend that ILO excuses the EPO’s abuses by providing some kind of effective oversight? █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA