Tribunal ILO reverses dismissals and downgrading of SUEPO leaders
June 27, 2018
In the last week of his term as president of the European Patent Office and a day before the official opening of the new EPO building in The Netherlands, president Benoit Battistelli lost three high-profile cases at the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILOAT). The tribunal said Battistelli’s decisions to dismiss SUEPO leaders Elizabeth Hardon and Ion Brumme and to downgrade their colleague Malika Weaver were wrong and must be set aside.
The ILOAT ordered the reinstatement of Brumme ‘to the position he held immediately before his dismissal’ and the restoration of Weaver ‘with retroactive effect to the grade and step she would have held but for the imposition of the disciplinary sanction’, payment of interest on the resulting remuneration arrears ‘at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from due dates until the date of payment’, payment of moral damages in the sum of 30.000 (Brumme) and 25.000 (Weaver) euros and the payment of costs in the sum of 8.000 euros (cases 4042 and 4043, published on 26 June 2018).
Both SUEPO leaders had been charged with breaching their duties under the Service Regulations – in the case of Ion Brumme inciting Malika Weaver to do so – by unduly pressuring an EPO employee to continue litigation against the EPO and by disclosing confidential information. But the ILOAT concluded they did nothing wrong.
Elizabeth Hardon
Elizabeth Hardon (judgment 4047) was fired on 15 January 2016 with a 20 percent reduction of her pension. She had been charged with three sets of allegations. ‘The first set involved allegations of unauthorised disclosure of EPO internal, confidential and personal material. The second set involved allegations that the complainant had threatened or harassed EPO staff. The third set involved allegations that the complainant had engaged in inappropriate behaviour in the course of the investigation and disciplinary procedures.’
The ILOAT however pointed out that ‘[A]ccording to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed’, and concluded that ‘the impugned decision to dismiss the complainant should be set aside because in assessing the complainant’s guilt it is not demonstrated that the appropriate standard of proof was applied, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt.’
Hardon’s case has been remitted by the ILOAT to the EPO ‘to enable a Disciplinary Committee, differently constituted, to consider the matter under Article 102 of the Service Regulations and for the President to make a fresh decision. (…) Indeed, and in any event, the complainant’s legal representative has advised the Tribunal, since her pleas were finalized, that her request for reinstatement is moot because she has sought to be paid a retirement pension from 1 July 2018 and EPO has agreed. The complainant is entitled to moral damages which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 20.000 euros. She is also entitled to costs which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 7.000 euros.’
And now?
In all three cases, president Battistelli had personally chosen to impose heavier sanctions than proposed by the EPO’s Disciplinary Committee. The fact that this is now reversed – unfortunately after more than two years - is a further stain on his tarnished reputation.
Some other cases were decided as well. As EPO-Flier reported: ‘the EPO also lost two more cases after disciplinary procedures - see Judgments 4051 and 4052. One case in this session concerning a colleague representing staff was lost. Michael’s relegation in step will not be reversed. Michael’s case is similar to Aurélien’s. Both worked for the IAC and found themselves in a situation with a too heavy workload so that they could no longer attend oral sessions and write dissenting opinions, while both activities form part of the duties of an IAC member.’
In the meantime, it remains to be seen in what way Battistelli and/or the EPO will react to the ILOAT’s decisions. While Battistelli will have his last moment of glory as president during the official opening of the new - semi-finished - building of the European Patent Office in Rijswijk in presence of Dutch king Willem-Alexander, it is not certain at all that Brumme and Weaver will receive a warm welcome, apologies or anything similar when they show up at work again, as has been shown by the appaling treatment of Irish judge Patrick Corcoran (see this blogpost, among others).
It can only be hoped that Antonio Campinos, who will succeed Battistelli on 1 July 2018 and who was chosen for his ‘thorough knowledge and proven practical application of modern management methods, including an outstanding ability to establish and foster social dialogue’ (blogpost) will urgently look at their cases and those of other SUEPO leaders, such as Laurent Prunier, who was fired on questionable charges as well and is still waiting for an ILOAT decision.
For regular updates, subscribe to this blog and the free Kluwer IP Law Newsletter.
Tags:
Benoit Battistelli,
EPO
Become a contributor!
Interested in contributing? Submit your proposal for a blog post now and become a part of our legal community!
Contact Editorial Guidelines
You may also like
June 24, 2025
Surprised
4043 (IB), Considerations, point 13, has an interesting reference to ILO case law concerning the right of unions to freedom of association and to preclude the organisation from interfering in this. This may be of particular relevance to the EPO’s action in only allowing strike ballots under approval of the EPO (I.e. Battistelli) which he did not give on at least one occasion. Additionally, the EPO insists that any vote is open to all staff and must be quorate under those rules. The EPO organises the ballot and thus no secrecy is guaranteed. In each case, the EPO is interfering with the functioning of the union (Suepo). It is hard to see that the ILO can not find in favour of any complainant, if such an appeal is ongoing. Noticeably, this is at the heart of the Suepo Dutch court case, lost at the Supreme Court on the basis of immunity from Dutch court application of human rights laws but not on the basis of substance. What a mess.
A friend of the EPO
What a blow for a person who thought he was above the law and immune to any critics. What a way to finish one’s time at the EPO. His reputation is more than tarnished, it is in tatters. When looking at the document “‘Modernising the EPO for excellence and sustainability”, I have rarely read a more biased and hypocritical document about the EPO than this one. But if you do not praise yourself who will do it to you? Especially now his crusade against SUEPO has ended up in a farce. By the way, not only the three persons you mention are rehabilitated, but also Mr Prunier. And for all of them damages have been ordered. The 8 years where the Napoleon of the 10th floor was at the helm of the EPO have been a disaster which might well open the grave of the EPO. May be this was his hidden agenda? I cannot see anything positive in his doings. That the EPO had to be woken up from a certain form of complacency is clear, but it did not warrant rocking the boat to the point it might sink. I would have expected that the users of the system, starting by the epi, would have reacted to all the damage done, but the silence was astounding from this side. One thing is sure, he was anything but a leader, as he showed absolutely unable to motivate his staff and was merely reigning by fear and demoralisation. Even worse, he was not a good manager as the sustainability of the EPO he claims, exists only in its imagination or that of his cronies. He leaves an EPO in tatters. May be the financial figures look good, but that not what matters at the EPO. Treating highly qualified staff like morons and with disdain is anything but a sign of leadership or good management. While the ILO-AT has said that the way the staff representatives have been handled is a disgrace, another forum for settling the disputes between staff and the management should be looked at. The ILO-AT is too formal. It is only when an administration goes manifestly overboard that it will act. This is not enough. It has also now to be seen how the EPO will deal with the reintegrated or re-graded staff. Will they get the same medicine as Mr Corcoran, i.e. be send in retaliation, but officially “in the interest of the organisation”, to another place of employment? If this is the case, I take bets that the ILO-AT will not bat an eyelid, but will state that this is according to staff regulations The president to come cannot fire all Napoleon’s cronies at once, as at the same time VP1/2, VP4 and VP 5, will also leave. If he wants to bring the EPO on a good track, he should have fired all the cronies by Christmas, or at least transfer them to posts were they will stop making havoc. I might sound hard, but I am boiling when I see the damage made to the EPO by such a bunch of incapable people full of themselves, and who on top of it, indulge in such self-praise. Techrights: FINGERS OFF !!! Do not copy past this contribution
spectator
According to ILOAT Judgment No. 4052 considerations 13 and 14 "the President did not consider the instruction referred to in Administrative Council Resolution CA/26/16" regarding arbitration or mediation. It will be interesting if the Administrative Council will react in its upcoming meeting.
Save the EPO
I am so happy to read these lines and hear about these decisions for Malika, Els and Ion since they did not deserve to be treated as they were, literally hunted like animals for simply having had the guts to do their job as staff reps and union officials wholeheartedly. My thoughts also go to Aurélien and Michael since they too worked really hard and honestly to defend the rights of EPO Staff Finally, I think of Laurent Prunier who is the last of the dismissed ones, with his case currently on-going in front of ILO-AT (no decision expected before at best end 2018, probably 2019). Laurent too was brutally chased by the duo Battistelli-Bergot for wrong-doings he did not commit, for extraneous motives, and after a shameful procedure, flawed and trumped up from A to Z, with his defence rights violated all along (another SUEPO official in TH is also in front of the ILO-AT for the same abusive/fake procedure (but fortunately was not dismissed). Let us now hope that Mr Campinos will put an end to this terrible social situation and set free these colleagues. This has obviously brutalised the individuals concerned at the first place (hence generated immense anxiety/suffering for their families and friends witnessing such injustice) but it has also shocked the entire EPO workforce who wants to see their representatives respected and treated with Duty of Care anyone deserves at his/her workplace.
Concerned observer
The ILO's conclusions in these cases are particularly interesting in the light of information that was previously known about how the EPO has conducted disciplinary / legal actions against other SUEPO representatives (and Mr Corcoran). This is because a clear pattern of behaviour is evident: those sanctioned appear to have been presumed to be guilty, and the flimsiest of excuses have been used by the EPO to "prove" that guilt. Now we know for certain that, at least in the cases of Corcoran, Hardon, Brumme and Weaver, there was no "proof" of guilt whatsoever. Instead, what has been proven is that, in all of those cases, the EPO has imposed harsh sanctions despite the total absence of any damning evidence. Are we to believe that it is a mere coincidence that SUEPO representatives (and Mr Corcoran) all happen to have been unfortunate enough to have had an inappropriate standard of "proof" applied to their cases by the EPO? Or is more likely that the EPO has deliberately targeted those individuals for punishment, regardless of the absence of any evidence of (serious) misconduct? Regardless, it is clear that the departing President has been very successful in one respect, namely seriously damaging the reputation of the EPO. Which raises a question... is that not a disciplinary offence?