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.

The Applicant challenges (i) the decision not to progress him to Grade Level GG2 at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, (ii) his 2019 performance review, (iii) the decision of the Ethics and Business Conduct Department (EBC) to close its review into allegations of retaliation allegedly perpetrated against him, and (iv) the decision not to progress him to Grade Level GG2 at the end of FY 2019. On 6 August 2021, the Bank submitted preliminary objections to the Application on the basis of untimeliness and failure to exhaust internal remedies. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant challenges (i) the decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) that he committed misconduct in violation of Staff Rule 8.01, paragraphs 2.01(a)–(c) and 4.06, and (ii) the imposition of disciplinary sanctions therein.

The Applicant challenges the misattribution and wrongful taking of his intellectual property and “the unannounced decision to blacklist [the] Applicant for [short-term] consultancies.”

The Applicant challenges (i) the non-renewal of his term appointment while he was on Short-Term Disability (STD), (ii) his 2017 and 2018 performance reviews, and (iii) the decision not to convert his term appointment to an open-ended appointment. 4. On 23 April 2021, the Bank submitted preliminary objections to the Application on the basis of untimeliness and failure to exhaust internal remedies. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections. 

The Applicant challenges the IFC’s compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment in EO (No. 2) (Merits), Decision No. 629 [2020] 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. On 2 April 2021, the IFC submitted preliminary objections. This judgment addresses the IFC’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant alleges that the Bank (i) improperly divested him of his duties as Country Manager (CM) for Sierra Leone following the publication of a media article in the Sierra Leone Telegraph in January 2018; (ii) improperly failed to shortlist him for CM positions in the Republic of Yemen (hereinafter Yemen) and in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (hereinafter Lao PDR); and (iii) improperly failed to provide him with feedback regarding his exclusion from the aforementioned shortlists and his non-selection for a CM position in Mongolia.

In his Application, the Applicant contends that (i) the IFC “failed to follow a fair and proper process” in conducting its voluntary separation (VS) program, and (ii) the IFC “did not have a reasonable and observable basis not to grant the Applicant’s application for VS, […] and discriminated, or otherwise acted in bad faith, against the Applicant.” 

In his Application, the Applicant contends that (i) the IFC “failed to follow a fair and proper process” in conducting its voluntary separation (VS) program, and (ii) the IFC “did not have a reasonable and observable basis not to grant the Applicant’s application for VS, […] and discriminated, or otherwise acted in bad faith, against the Applicant.”

In his Application, the Applicant contends that (i) the IFC’s voluntary separation (VS) program did not follow a fair and proper process, and (ii) the IFC’s decision to reject his VS application was unreasonable and specific facts “support the conclusion that he should have been granted VS” or that, in the alternative, his position should have been declared redundant.

The Applicant is challenging the IFC’s decision to make her employment redundant.

The Applicant is challenging the 17 December 2019 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (ARP) denying his claim for workers’ compensation.

Withdrawal.

The Applicant challenges the decision to shorten the duration of her Short-Term Temporary (STT) contract. On 23 September 2020, the Bank submitted preliminary objections challenging the timeliness of the Application. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections

The Applicant is challenging the IFC’s decision to make her employment redundant, the Peer Review Services dismissal of her Request for Review No. 459, and a Performance Management Review of managerial decisions regarding her Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) performance evaluation and performance rating. The IFC filed preliminary objections to the Application on 22 October 2020. This judgment addresses the IFC’s preliminary objections.