02.11.20
Gemini version available ♊︎Sometimes ILO-AT is Good for Nothing But Law Firms in or Around Switzerland
ILO and the UN contribute to the negative image surrounding them by not only abandoning but also draining resources of the labour force
Summary: ILO-AT’s latest judgements are out. But ILO — and by extension the UN — are still morally deficient and they give the impression that don’t care about people (or that ILO is in bed with the same businesses WIPO (UN) serves, i.e. no better than WB/IMF).
IF WIPO wasn’t bad enough, how about ILO? On the surface it may seem like it exists to protect workers. It’s in the mission statement, too.
Don’t let mission statements deceive you. Words on a Web site (or paper) are cheap. We want to see action, we need to examine track records. Even ILO’s own workers are disgruntled. The media wrote about it years ago.
When it comes to handling abuses of European Patent Office (EPO) management, ILO has been nothing short of appalling. It’s exceptionally sad as it is EPO workers’ last if not sole recourse. A top court in the Netherlands was even led to believe that the ILO’s tribunal is functional; well, by the ILO’s own admission (several reports and papers), it’s struggling badly and cannot keep up with EPO complaints — to the point where it considered throwing out the EPO (leaving it under no outside scrutiny/authority). ILO only contributed even further to those negative perceptions when it met António Campinos instead of staff or staff representatives. Is ILO just the “mop-up man” of EPO autocrats? Does it have a real court or a kangaroo court? Is the sole goal clearing the ‘backlog’ no matter what (or how)? Does that mirror the EPO’s misguided strategy? Playing ‘ping-pong’ with appellants (bouncing them back and forth in “no man’s land”)?
Some days ago we saw and wrote about tweets from Dr. Koch, a former staff representative at the EPO, whose appeal to ILO was ‘shelved’ for no less than 6 years! What sort of justice is that? And yet worse, she retorted, “My cases AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532 were indeed deemed moot – the ILOAT did it!!”
“Don’t let mission statements deceive you. Words on a Web site (or paper) are cheap. We want to see action, we need to examine track records.”“I refer to Judgment no. 4256: my initials are on page 10 of that judgment. The complainants are not even compensated for the costs we made – we just “may[!] be entitled to costs in the resumed appeals”.
“As far as I’m concerned, there won’t be any “resumed appeals” with THIS Tribunal and even less with the EPO from my side in any nearby future, due to their procedural conduct.
“ILO seems fine with it. After a century of its existence it became another FIFA.”“My health severely deteriorated since 2015, I have a lot of stress-related inflammatory symptoms and feel unable to continue, especially since I was repeatedly set 30-days terms by the ILO-AT. I occasionally worked far beyond my limits to prevent this outcome and will be offline for a while from tomorrow.
“And, contrary to some other unfortunate EPO colleagues, I have no(!!) intention whatsoever to commit suicide – I just want you to know, for precaution…
“Please feel free to publish.”
She also wrote about this in Twitter yesterday. Tweets of relevance follow:
Let's recall the ILO Admin. Tribunal's e-mail of 13-11-2019. My cases AT5-4384 and AT-4532 were assigned to the 129th session, contrary to Article 10.2 of the Tribunal's Rules. https://t.co/Qi7ulSDCPR
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
My reply to the ILO Admin. Tribunal fo 14-11-2019: https://t.co/Dx8QCq3wLa
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
My reply to the ILO Admin. Tribunal of 18-11-2019: https://t.co/gkfv8SLsW6
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
And the ILO Admin. Tribunal's reply, revoking their last action: https://t.co/lzyBOiSfGj
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
The "incredible" happened – my cases AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532 were remanded to the EPO today, with many others, see Judgment 4256, page 10 (initials A.K.). https://t.co/O4fgLQqVCj
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
Yet, given the way I had been treated before, i.e. 30-days terms, etc., this was quite in the line of my expectations by now… https://t.co/La0YYGEbbq
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
As far as I'm concerned, there won't be any "resumed appeals" with THIS Tribunal and even less with the EPO from my side in any nearby future.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
My health severely deteriorated since 2015,I have a lot of stress-related inflamatory symptoms and feel unable to continue,especially since I was repeatedly set 30-days terms by the ILO-AT. I occasionally worked far beyond my limits to prevent this outcome,but obviously couldn't.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
I will be offline for a while – anyway, there was limited interest and support for this issue of #HumanRightsViolations/ non-access #Article6ECHR – apparently human rights of employees of IOs do not matter.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
For protection of my health I will not be available for any correspondence with the EPO or the ILO-AT in any nearby future. I leave qualifications of these organisations to others…
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
And no, I am not desperate. I have other roots and wings for support, fortunately, see below (citation from: Source: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "Widerstand und Ergebung", DBW vol. 8, page 36; translated to English) https://t.co/bul86Q8530
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) February 10, 2020
Over the years I have come across similar tricks — usually in political contexts. This is designed to drive appellants to exhaustion, causing them to lose morale/health, become broke, or both. It’s a game where those with deeper pockets always win. ILO seems fine with it. After a century of its existence it became another FIFA. The EPO’s lawyers made a fortune from this abuse — at times physical — of vulnerable people. How well do they sleep at night? █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA