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.
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.
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 . The Applicant invokes Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute in support of his position. The IFC submitted preliminary objections. The Application is dismissed.
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.
The Applicant seeks reconsideration of Rofman, Decision No. 669  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.
The Applicant challenges his non-promotion, alleges that he was not fairly graded, and claims retaliation. The Application is dismissed.
The Applicant challenges the failure to consider her for the positions of Regional Safeguard Coordinator for West Africa and Regional Safeguard Coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean. (1) The Bank shall pay the Applicant compensation in the amount of one and a half years’ salary net of taxes; (2) The Bank shall pay the Applicant’s legal fees and costs in the amount of $26,837.50; and (3) All other claims are dismissed.
The Applicant requested the withdrawal of her Application stating that she had reached a settlement with the Bank.
The Applicant challenges the Bank’s denial of her request for a Mobility Premium.
The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to progress him to Grade Level GG2 at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (the Non-Progression Decision).
The Applicant challenges his non-promotion, alleges that he was not fairly graded, and claims retaliation.
The Applicant challenges the “[r]andom, untruthful, and unjustified decision to abolish [her] position which hurt [her] personally and financially.”
In his Application, the Applicant challenges the 8 February 2021 decision of the Peer Review Services (PRS) Chair to dismiss his Request for Review.
The Applicant challenges the IFC’s compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment in EO (No. 2) (Merits), Decision No. 629 , in respect of the following: (i) the delay in calculating the adjustment to his Long-Term Disability (LTD) payments and the failure to correctly resolve the issues with the adjustments in a timely manner; and (ii) the decision to omit the period of 1 July 2017 to 15 July 2017 when calculating his retroactive salary adjustment.
The Applicant challenges the failure to consider her for the positions of Regional Safeguard Coordinator for West Africa and Regional Safeguard Coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Applicant challenges the Human Resources Vice President’s (HRDVP) determination that she committed misconduct and the disciplinary measures imposed therein.
The Applicant challenges the decision of the Pension Benefits Administration Committee (PBAC) to deny his request to modify the quantum of his Optional Survivor Annuity Pension (OSP) election.
The Applicant challenges the Pension Administration’s (PENAD’s) “failure to fully account for the pensionable Special Compensation Measures [SCM] pay [the Applicant] received during his final three years of Bank service when calculating [the Applicant’s] Defined Benefit Pension amount.”
The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to select him for a Senior Operations Officer position (Requisition No. 2739).
The Applicant contends that the findings of the Integrity Vice Presidency (INT) are unfounded and do not support the decision that his conduct amounts to misconduct. The Applicant further contends that the sanctions imposed are significantly disproportionate.