Administrative Tribunal - Judgment No. 3997 - Global Fund performance evaluation dispute

Aug 23, 2026

Upload by James

Administrative Tribunal judgment addresses a complaint filed by Mr S. C. against the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria concerning the review of his 2012 performance evaluation. The case recounts internal administrative steps, the complainant’s challenge to the rating and procedure, and the procedural concerns identified by the Appeal Board. The Executive Director endorsed the Appeal Board’s majority recommendations, leading to a second evaluation recorded in the performance management system. The tribunal considers the relief sought, including compensation and legal costs, and the respondent’s objections that the evaluation claim is moot and compensation requests were not raised internally.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time18 min

AccessFree to download

Considerations

Background of the complaint

Appeal Board recommendations and Executive Director decision

Parties’ requests and respondent’s objections

Organisation internationale du Travail International Labour Organization Tribunal administratif Administrative Tribunal C. v. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria 126th Session Judgment No. 3997 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the complaint filed by Mr S. C. against the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (hereinafter “the Global Fund”) on 21 October 2014 and corrected on 17 December 2014, the Global Fund’s reply of 19 March 2015, the complainant’s rejoinder of 29 May and the Global Fund’s surrejoinder of 2 September 2015; Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal; Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied; Considering that the facts ofthe case maybe summed up as follows: The complainant challenges his 2012 performance evaluation. The complainant joined the Global Fund in 2006. In April 2012 he began working as an Administrative Assistant in the Grant Management Directorate under the supervision of Ms D.-C. In November 2012 he was transferred to the Central Africa Regional Team, under the supervision of Mr T.B.H. On 16 January 2013 Ms D.-C. completed the complainant’s performance evaluation for the period from 1 July to 7 November 2012 (hereinafter the “2012 performance evaluation”) and gave him an overall rating of “Serious concerns”. Judgment No. 3997 At the material time the Global Fund Employee Handbook did not contain rules governing the review of a performance evaluation in the event that a staff member disagreed with her or his evaluation. In an email to all staff of 14 May 2013 the Head of the Human Resources Department (HRD) provided information about the process for reviewing performance evaluation ratings, amongst other things. By an email of 29 May to the Head of HRD, the complainant challenged the 2012 performance evaluation on several bases, asked that it be declared void, and sought its removal from his personnel file. He attached several documents to his email, including a summary of events which had occurred prior to the issuance of the 2012 performance evaluation in which he alleged that he had been harassed and bullied by Ms D.-C. A series of exchanges and meetings ensued between the complainant and members of the Administration in an attempt to resolve the issue. On 26 November 2013 the Head of HRD offered the complainant two options. Either his new manager, Mr T.B.H., could rewrite the 2012 performance evaluation including, as he saw fit, the views of Ms D.-C., or the complainant’s letter of 29 May 2013 outlining the issues with the 2012 performance evaluation could be added to his personnel file. In addition, the Head of HRD stated that she took his allegations of bullying and harassment seriously and she explained that in order to immediately pursue further investigation she needed a detailed list of events and allegations which should accompany his related grievance in the event he wished to pursue such a grievance. On 23 January 2014 the complainant filed an appeal before the Appeal Board against the decision of 26 November 2013 rejecting his request to have the 2012 performance evaluation declared null and void and removed from his personnel file. In its report of 14 July 2014 the Appeal Board concluded that there had been procedural flaws in the performance evaluation, that there was no correlation between the contested performance evaluation and the allegations of bullying and harassment, that it did not have any basis to pursue the accusations of bullying and harassment (this was not the matter contended in the appeal) and that there was no supporting evidence that the complainant had suffered personal prejudice. A majority of the Appeal Board members 2 Judgment No. 3997 recommended that the 2012 performance evaluation be set aside andredone in accordance with the applicable rules. The Appeal Board further recomm

FAQs

What was the main issue in Mr S. C.’s complaint?

He challenged his 2012 performance evaluation, arguing it should be declared null and void and removed from his personnel file.

What did the Appeal Board conclude about the 2012 performance evaluation?

By a majority, it found procedural flaws, recommended the evaluation be set aside and redone under applicable rules, and recommended dismissing the remainder on the merits.

How did the Global Fund respond to the complaint?

It argued the challenge to the evaluation was moot because the initial evaluation had been replaced, and it contested the receivability of compensation claims for not being raised during the internal appeal process.

Aug 23, 2026

Upload by James