An ongoing assault on the Rule of Law
THE EPO is governed by thugs [1, 2] who bully people far more qualified than themselves. They bully them with impunity. When courts finally rule on disputes -- even if nearly a decade late -- the bullies refuse to actually execute the rulings. We've seen that many times over the years; sometimes they merely pretend to have complied.
"Below we reproduce portions of a letter circulated among staff earlier today (someone has leaked a copy to us)."Remember that these are the same bullies who pressure judges to allow European software patents while euphemising these as "CII", "4IR", "Hey Hi" (AI), "simulations" and so on...
This time around staff of the EPO is organising against the bullies and today (weekend, sure!) some instructions are being circulated to increase pressure for compliance. Of note: The "Mafia" that runs the Office refuse to even speak about compliance! Just as we noted a couple of days ago. Where's the media coverage? Why aren't journalists applying any sort of pressure by informing the public? Has Europe's media become a lapdog complicit with these abuses?
Below we reproduce portions of a letter circulated among staff earlier today (someone has leaked a copy to us). The introductory part contains sufficient background/context, we hope.
31 July 2021 su21022cp – 0.2.1/5.1/5.2
Applications to intervene on strike regulations pending cases
In its 132nd session, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) expressed in Judgments 4430, 4432, 4433, 4434, 4435 that the entire legal framework intended to curb strikes in the EPO is unlawful. The paper “Strike!” provides a summary of the judgments.
In a letter dated 14 July 2021 to Mr Campinos, SUEPO requested him to execute the judgments and that the outcome of the judgments is applied to all. Until now, our requests remain unanswered and the EPO communication department only offers thundering silence.
In order to safeguard your rights, we strongly recommend you to “join” other pending cases by filing applications to intervene. This paper explains how. We recommend to file electronically at the latest on 8 August.
I. Case AT-5 5167: Mr Battistelli abused his power by not organising the UNITY ballot
On 16 May 2014, the Central Staff Committee (CSC) notified Mr Battistelli of a call for strike by a group of staff members calling themselves the “UNITY initiative”. Strike actions were foreseen on 25 and/or 26 June 2014, which would have coincided with the meeting of the Administrative Council at which the extension of Mr Battistelli’s appointment was to be discussed. The initiators had clearly designated the CSC as their representative or interlocutor. Nevertheless, Mr Battistelli found reasons in Communiqué 54 not to organize the ballot within the time limit. The planned strike action never took place.
If you were an active EPO employee at the time of the relevant facts, you can join the above case by filing an application to intervene.
Case AT-5 5167 was filed by two complainants:
● Complainant 1 was an EPO staff representative at the relevant time of the facts, and ● Complainant 2 was an EPO staff member.
[redacted]
II. Case AT-5 5179: strike deductions of 1/20th are unlawful and punitive
Since the entry into force of CA/D 5/13 on 1 July 2013, the existing Articles 63 and 65 ServRegs were amended by setting deductions for unauthorised absence and strike at 1/20th of the monthly net remuneration per day. Until then, a deduction of 1/30th per day had been applied in both cases.
If you were an EPO employee on strike during the period of July 2013 until April 2016 and suffered from strike deductions of 1/20th per day, you can join the above case by filing an application to intervene.
[redacted]
III. Case AT-5 5244: the SUEPO called strike of 2 July 2013 was lawful
Back in 2013, on 27 June, after a favourable ballot1, SUEPO published its “action plan for the summer 2013”. One of the actions planned by SUEPO was a picket strike which would take place on 2 July 2013 if the Administrative Council adopted the proposal2 of Mr Battistelli for a new legal framework governing the right to strike The proposal was adopted by the Administrative Council on 27 June 2013 in decision CA/D 5/13, which was to enter into force on 1 July 2013.
In his Communiqué of 28 June 2013 the Vice-President of DG4 (Mr Topić at the material time) announced that as from 1 July 2013, any industrial action which does not fulfil the conditions laid down in the aforementioned new provisions will not be considered as a strike, with the result that participation in such action was liable to be considered as unauthorised absence.
On 2 July 2013 the strike announced by SUEPO took place. Employees who did participate received a threatening letter from Principal Director Human Resources (Ms Bergot at the material time) shortly afterwards informing them that, as that strike did not comply with the new rules, they were considered to have been absent without authorisation and a deduction from their pay would be made accordingly.
If you were an EPO employee who went on strike on 2 July 2013 and your absence was considered as unauthorised, you can join the above case by filing an application to intervene.
_____________ 1 “Results of the four ballots on the continuation of the industrial actions”, SUEPO paper of 27 June 2013 (su13091cp) 2 GAC/DOC 10/2013 rev. 1
The required evidence is:
[redacted]
SUEPO Central