ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 119th Session

Judgment No. 3425


1. The rejection of the complainant’s internal appeal is quashed.
2. The complaint is sent back to the Global Fund so that the internal appeals procedures can be followed, as stated in consideration 10.
3. The Fund shall pay the complainant 1,500 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed as well as the Fund’s counterclaim for costs.


After his contract was terminated, the complainant successfully challenges the rejection of his appeal, for lack of formal notification.

Judgment keywords


complaint allowed; internal appeal; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; non-renewal of contract

Consideration 2


"This occurred in circumstances where the Registrar exercised a power enabling the complainant to “correct” the complaint under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Rules. The Global Fund argues that this is an impermissible use of the power conferred on the Registrar by Article 6 and, in the result, the completed complaint (complaint form and brief) was filed out of time. However the exercise of the power conferred by Article 6(2), additionally by Article 14 of the Rules, in similar circumstances has been sanctioned by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (see Judgment 1500, under 1 and 2)."


ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500


correction of complaint

Consideration 7


"The HR Director should have appreciated, and almost certainly did, that each of these three matters was being raised by the complainant with her. Also, she almost certainly would have known that, according to the Global Fund’s Human Resources Regulations and Grievance and Dispute Resolution Procedure, the complainant was obliged to take up his grievance with his line manager and not with her. In those circumstances, she was obliged to forward the e-mail, described as “formal notification” of a grievance, to the person with whom the complainant should have been dealing, namely the complainant’s line manager. The duty to do so is established by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (see, for example, Judgments 1832, under 6, 2882, under 6, and 3027, under 7)."


ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882, 3027


duty of care

Last updated: 11.06.2020 ^ top