Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes

As Märpel noted in the previous post, the 125th session of the ILOAT published in January was so successful for the EPO that Laurent Germond, Director Employment Law, published a glowing report on the EPO intranet.

Right after judgment 3971, the report continues with another judgment concerning a staff representative: "Staff representation and respect of the ServRegs and the standards of conduct"


Laurent Germond continues:
"In Judgment No 3968, the Tribunal confirmed that staff representatives are not immune and must abide by provisions of the ServRegs and the standards of conduct. The case related to the death of an EPO employee concerns Ms E.H., at that time staff representative, who forwarded to a SUEPO distribution list, a copy of the letter written on 5 June 2012 by the Munich local section of the SUEPO and the Munich Staff Committee to the President, with an accompanying email where she wrote that "most of us believe that the behaviour of [the deceased staff member's] (previous) manager and the unfounded attacks by PD4.3 (culminating in a disciplinary procedure) have contributed significantly to his death."
The Tribunal considered that the President of the Office, while disregarding the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee, was fully justified to apply a severe sanction - downgrading - to this staff representative. "Indeed, sending in full knowledge to a large group of persons an email containing accusations likely to highly damage the name and reputation of a staff member does constitute such a failure." The Tribunal concluded that Ms E.H. "acted carelessly, with regard to a very sensitive subject, conscious of the probability that her statement would highly offend other staff members and would create great unrest among colleagues, damaging the work environment." It further emphasised her refusal to present any apologies and the serious consequences of her behaviour on the health of the manager. Her complaint against an alleged institutional harassment was also dismissed."

The text of judgment 3968 can be found here:
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=en&p_judgment_no=3968&p_language_code=EN

There are so many problems with this judgement that Märpel does not know where to start. Maybe she should simply start with the facts: someone committed suicide and Mrs Elisabeth Hardon, who had dealt with that person as a staff representative, was understandably upset. She was all the more upset because it was the second suicide under the same manager. Judgment 3968 fails to mention that "detail", although the tribunal was certainly informed by the defendant.
After that suicide Mrs Hardon send an E-mail to an internal SUEPO distribution list were she stated as follows:
"[...] most of us believe that the behaviour of [the deceased staff member's] (previous) manager and the unfounded attacks by PD4.3 (culminating in a disciplinary procedure) have contributed significantly to his death. [...] Formally the Office will of course deny any guilt. But we hope that this letter will contribute to an internal discussion and maybe some lessons will be learnt."
(This is the text, verbatim, from judgement 3968.)

Märpel finds that text to be a rather measured response to a double suicide. Mr A., the manager of the two deceased persons, considered that single e-mail harassment.

Harassment has always been a difficult subject at the EPO, so difficult that the definition of harassment was the subject of several circulars. Märpel understands that Mrs Hardon was found guilty under the terms of a circular published after the facts (point 8 of judgement 3968).

Actually, Mrs Hardon was NOT found guilty, twice. VP4 wrote to that effect on 13 July 2012 (point 4 of judgement 3968) and the disciplinary committee wrote a report to the same effect on 28 January 2014 (point 8 of judgement 3968). But President Battistelli found otherwise and decided to downgrade Mrs Hardon.

Judgement 3968 confirmed the sanction. Most striking is point 18: "Consistent case law holds that the executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body". Märpel understands that AT-ILO is satisfied that President Battistelli can strike any staff member he wants, with complete disregard for internal disciplinary bodies.

Isn't there a problem with that?


Mrs. Hardon was dismissed later and for another case of "harassment" (that time a single word and not an email). She was dismissed together with another SUEPO official, Ion Brumme. A third SUEPO official, Malika Weaver, was downgraded. The 3 cases are planned for the next session of AT-ILO, right in time for President Battistelli end of contract bonus and inventor of the year event. Timing is everything. Märpel hates to predict the future, but her contacts in the 7th floor of the Isar building told her that the celebrations shall not be spoiled. It is a little known fact that the Office receives AT-ILO judgements before official publication.

Märpel does not predict the future, but she can talk about the past and the past explains everything. In the next article.