You may have overlooked the "2018" decisions which were published early in December 2017 because they wgere of great importance. The session in January was only Part 2 of the session which was from 2017. Needless to say those other decisions were in favour of staff and in a significant way with regard to the unfair practices.
With regard to comparing tribunals, it would seem strange that any tribunal would not be 50-50 in decisions if they are limited to difficult or unclear cases in basically fair internal systems. 75% success is rather disturbing.
With regard to ILO, this had to be s seen in the light of the Council of Europe investigation which has identified problems. The ILO is purely an administrative tribunal which acts to check procedures rather than equity. Dismissals are often as a result of procedural interpretations e.g. the cases you mention include dismissing requests for a company to return private property as the request cannot be heard until the company has completely finished all disciplinary dteps (which have now been ongoing for years). In that case the appellant had no other means to make a request (civil law in the country concerned is not applicable).
With a little deeper analysis, you may appreciate that threeILO is a weak justice system which cannot equate to national law. Unfortunately.