[Correction: "Alain Prunier" (as named below by Märpel) is actually a mistake. It is in fact Aurélien Pétiaud in the text below.]

Summary: A famous EPO 'disciplinary' case is recalled; it's another one of those EPO-leaning rulings from AT-ILO, which not only praises Battistelli amid very serious abuses but also lies on his behalf, leaving workers with no real access to justice but a mere illusion thereof

The dismissal of SUEPO secretary Laurent Prunier a couple of years ago [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] was the subject of much debate regarding EPO scandals. It happened at the Dutch 'branch', not the German one. He was probably Battistelli's last casualty (among many) that was a staff representative and he was fired in defiance of 'orders' from the Administrative Council. This served to reaffirm the view that Battistelli was 'in charge' of his 'supposed' regulator.

"Well, thankfully, owing to EPO scandals, we nowadays know that ILO too is dysfunctional."It turns out that there's another Prunier (see correction above), Alain Prunier Aurélien Pétiaud, whose case [PDF] Märpel has just dug out, remarking on oneself in the form of a third person (like Merpel) that "Märpel may only wonder at what the "L" in "ILO" stands for. It used to stand for "labour"." Here's the key part:

The events concerning Mr Alain Prunier Aurélien Pétiaud are known from all the EPO. They took place in 2014. At the time, Mr. Prunierr Pétiaud found it necessary to protest the way the appeal committee was run under President Battistelli's orders. It was run as a purely rubber-stamping affair and since the members chosen by staff were in minority, cases were lost. Mr. Prunierr Pétiaud protested and took a courageous decision: on each case he took the time to write a minority opinion (see judgment point 16), thereby documenting the malfunctioning of the committee. President Battistelli was not amused and simply increased the workload to a point where there was no time to write these opinions and still attend the sessions. Mr. Prunierr Pétiaud refused and publicly explained why he took that decision, in agreement with SUEPO. To all EPO staff, it was clear that this was a political message and not a refusal to carry out his duties. But AT-ILO found differently.

Well, thankfully, owing to EPO scandals, we nowadays know that ILO too is dysfunctional. In many ways and aspects. As noted earlier this month, the ILO nowadays lies on behalf of Battistelli and the EPO. It makes one wonder if ILO defends labour from abuses of power or simply defends powerful people from 'pesky' workers who challenge abuse of power. â–ˆ