Search

20 of 769 results.Show: 20 40 60 80View all casesShow details | Hide details
HF, HG, and HH v. IFC (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 699Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicants challenge the decision communicated to [the] Applicants and other United Kingdom nationals by [the] Manager, Treasury Client Solutions, IFC, on February 7, 2022, stating that “after extensive consultations with relevant units across the WBG [World Bank Group], including the IBRD [International Bank for Reconstruction and Development] compensation unit, Legal, Tax office, and others,” “all UK nationals and UK permanent resident staff are liable for their share of the NIC [National Insurance Contribution] and reimbursement on past and current NIC obligations is not possible.” The Applications are dismissed. 

HE v. IBRD
Number: 698Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenges the decision not to renew her term appointment. The Bank shall pay the Applicant compensation in the amount of two years’ net salary based on the last regular salary drawn by the Applicant, for the improper non-renewal decision and its implication on her pension benefits; (2) The Bank shall pay the Applicant six months’ net salary based on the last regular salary drawn by the Applicant, for the Bank’s failure to act with fairness and transparency; (3) The Bank shall pay the Applicant six months’ net salary based on the last regular salary drawn by the Applicant, for the harm to the Applicant’s career prospects, reputation, and professional life; (4) The Bank shall pay the Applicant’s legal fees and costs in the amount of $30,510.00; and (5) All other claims are dismissed.

HD v. IBRD
Number: 697Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenges the determination made by the Human Resources Department Vice President (HRDVP) that she committed misconduct and the disciplinary measures imposed therein. With effect from the date of this judgment, the Applicant shall be reinstated as a staff member of the Bank; (2) The Bank may impose any disciplinary measure, or a combination of disciplinary measures, contained in Staff Rule 3.00, paragraph 10.06, short of termination; (3) The Bank shall contribute to the Applicant’s legal fees and costs in the amount of $30,000.00; and (4) All other claims are dismissed.

HA v. IBRD (Merits)
Number: 696Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant alleges unfair treatment and violations of due process by the Ethics and Business Conduct Department (EBC). The Application is dismissed.

GZ v. IBRD (Merits)
Number: 695Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant alleges unfair treatment and violations of due process by the Ethics and Business Conduct Department (EBC). The Application is dismissed.

HC v. IBRD
Number: 694Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenges the decision not to renew her term appointment. The Bank shall pay the Applicant compensation in the amount of nine months’ net salary based on the last regular salary drawn by the Applicant for the improper non-renewal decision; (2) The Bank shall pay the Applicant six months’ net salary based on the last regular salary drawn by the Applicant for violations of due process; (3) The Bank shall pay the Applicant’s legal fees and costs in the amount of $19,900.00; and (4) All other claims are dismissed.

HB v. IFC (Merits)
Number: 693Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenges the determination that he was ineligible for an IFC Departmental Performance Award. The IFC shall pay the Applicant $4,624.00 for the loss of opportunity to be considered for a Departmental Performance Award in Fiscal Year 2021; (2) The IFC shall pay the Applicant $4,674.78 for the loss of opportunity to be considered for a Departmental Performance Award in Fiscal Year 2022; (3) The IFC shall include a copy of this judgment in the Applicant’s personnel file; (4) The IFC shall pay the Applicant’s legal fees and costs in the amount of $18,520.00; and (5)    All other claims are dismissed.

GJ (No. 2) v. IBRD
Number: 692Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenges the 22 August 2022 decision of the Administrative Review Panel (ARP) denying his claim for Long-Term Disability (LTD) benefits. The Bank was ordered to pay the Applicant compensation in the amount of $10,000.00 and all other claims were dismissed.

HB v. IFC (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 691Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenged the 29 November 2021 determination that he was ineligible for an IFC Departmental Performance Award based on 2019 disciplinary sanctions which included ineligibility for salary increases for a period of five years. The IFC submitted preliminary objections to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The IFC’s preliminary objections were dismissed; the IFC was ordered to contribute to the Applicant’s legal fees and costs in the amount of $5,000.00 for the preliminary objection phase of the proceedings.

HA v. IBRD (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 690Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant alleged unfair treatment and violations of due process by the Ethics and Business Conduct Department. Some of the Applicant’s requested remedies included a promotion to Grade Level GD and for her term contract to be converted to open-ended. The Bank averred that the Application should be dismissed because (i) it failed to identify any specific non-observance of the Applicant’s contract of employment or terms of appointment; (ii) the corrected Application was not filed in a timely manner; and (iii) the Applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies. The Bank’s preliminary objections with respect to claims pertaining to promotion and contract type were upheld; all other preliminary objections were dismissed; and the Bank was ordered to contribute to the Applicant’s legal fees and costs.

GZ v. IBRD (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 689Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant alleged unfair treatment and violations of due process by the Ethics and Business Conduct Department. The Bank averred that the Application should be dismissed because (i) it failed to identify any specific non-observance of the Applicant’s contract of employment or terms of appointment and (ii) the corrected Application was not filed in a timely manner. The Bank’s preliminary objections were dismissed, and the Bank was ordered to contribute to the Applicant’s legal fees and costs.

GY v. IBRD
Number: 688Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenged the non-confirmation of her appointment. The Application was dismissed.

GX v. IBRD (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 687Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenged the Bank’s denial of her request for a mobility premium following her promotion to an internationally recruited, GF-level position. The Bank submitted preliminary objections to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Bank’s preliminary objections were dismissed; the Bank was ordered to pay the Applicant’s legal fees and costs in the amount of £2,676.50 for the preliminary objection phase of the proceedings.

GW v. IFC
Number: 686Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant is challenging (i) the non-confirmation decision resulting in the termination of his employment and (ii) his performance rating of 2 for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21).(1) The non-confirmation decision is rescinded. The IFC shall remove from the Applicant’s personnel file all records of the non-confirmation decision and include a copy of this judgment in the Applicant’s personnel file. The IFC shall reinstate the Applicant to a Senior Investment Officer position or similar, retroactive to 23 January 2022. In the event the IFC decides not to reinstate the Applicant, it shall compensate him for damages resulting from the non-confirmation decision in an amount equivalent to one and a half years’ net salary based on the last regular salary drawn by the Applicant; (2) The IFC shall pay the Applicant compensation in the amount of nine months’ net salary based on the last regular salary drawn for procedural irregularities and failures in due process; (3) The IFC shall pay the Applicant’s legal fees and costs in the amount of $36,632.00; and (4) All other claims are dismissed.

EO (No. 4) v. IFC
OrderDate: Judgment/Order
Description

The Application was dismissed.

Grofsmacht, Nin, Pereyra, and Perez v. IBRD (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 685Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicants challenge the “Bank’s failure to disclose to affected staff the terms on which it made Depreciation SCM [Special Compensation Measures] pay pensionable from 2015 to 2020.” The Bank submitted its preliminary objections. The consolidated amended Application is dismissed.

Marafie v. IBRD (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 684Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to select her for an Operations Analyst position. On 21 March 2022, the Bank submitted preliminary objections to the Application on the basis of lack of standing. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections. The Application is dismissed.

FR (No. 2) v. IFC (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 683Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant requests the Tribunal to review the case closing memorandum by the Ethics and Business Conduct Department (EBC) and “supplement and complete its ruling in this matter” as provided in FR (Merits), Decision No. 651 [2021]. The Applicant invokes Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute in support of his position. The IFC submitted preliminary objections. The Application is dismissed.

Milton v. IFC
Number: 682Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant alleged that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) failed to follow fair and proper processes with respect to the non-confirmation of her appointment and her probationary period. The Applicant contended that the IFC’s decision to recommend her for non-confirmation was predetermined, premature, and arbitrary, and the IFC did not follow the performance management process as required by the Staff Rules. The Applicant also contended that the IFC failed to follow the applicable Staff Rules and Principles of Staff Employment regarding the confirmation/nonconfirmation of her probationary period. Finally, the Applicant asserted that her separation from the IFC was a result of retaliation. The Application was dismissed.

Rofman (No. 2) v. IBRD (Preliminary Objection)
Number: 681Date: Judgment/OrderSummary
Description

The Applicant seeks reconsideration of Rofman, Decision No. 669 [2022] pursuant to Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute on the question of “whether the manner in which [the Depreciation Special Compensation Measures (SCM)] policy was effectuated and communicated breached the Bank’s fundamental obligations concerning transparency with respect to compensation.” The Bank objected to the Applicant’s request. The Application is dismissed.