Suepo Munich organised a demonstration today to celebrate the latest decisions of AT-ILO. Ion Brumme, Malika Weaver and Elisabeth Hardon were present.
In Suepo's words:
"The ILOAT ordered the reinstatement of Ion Brumme 'to the position he held immediately before his dismissal' and the restoration of Malika Weaver 'with retroactive effect to the grade and step she would have held but for the imposition of the disciplinary sanction', as well as payment of interest on the resulting remuneration arrear, payment of moral damages and payment of costs. Elizabeth 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. She is entitled to moral damages and payment of costs.
The decisions of the ILOAT are a slap in the face of Mr. Battistelli and clearly demonstrate his incompetence to manage an international organization."
Märpel certainly rejoices for Ion Brumme and Malika Weaver. The case of Elisabeth Hardon, however, appears to be a Pyrrhic victory. Why wasn't she reinstated if the EPO was not able to do their part of the job? Why did AT-ILO consider that the cases of Ion Brumme and Malika Weaver were union bashing but the procedure over the third Suepo representative was not? Did they believe Mr Minnoye when he said publicly that all this was pure "Zufall" (randomness)?
Just a few hours before the decision was issued, someone posted a comment under the name of "Mentalist" on this site:
"Mentalist" argued that "a remittal is the best option for EPO's management. It allows them to play cat and mouse for another couple of years, effectively keeping SUEPO busy. It passes the bucket to the next president, with a blank check to do nothing for a few years. It deprives the affected persons of any recourse, because the legal process would still be running."