The Applicant contends that the position he held at the Bank at the time of the Job Grading Exercise, Procurement Adviser (Services), was improperly graded at level 24 rather than level 25. He rests his claim on the initial recommendation of the JGAB to the Vice President, PA, and on the fact that the second JGAB recommendation – that the Applicant submit to a complete job audit – was based on a defective procedure. 

In these cases the substantive question is whether or not the Tribunal should, in these applications nominally for clarification of Decision Nos. 41 -54, order the Bank to pay costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys' fees ("costs") incurredby the Applicants in bringing their cases to the Tribunal. 

This case involves an application by a former Budget Officer in the Accounting Department of the Bank, seeking rescission of a decision by the Appeals Committee, which declined jurisdiction on his appeal on the ground that his recourse to the Appeals Committee was time-barred.
 

The Applicant in this case raises two main issues: (i) She contends that the Respondent’s decision (taken by the Vice President and Controller in lieu of the Vice President, PA) to allocate the job grade 17 to her “Editorial Position” was faulty and should be rescinded for the three grounds mentioned in Staff Rule 9.04 Section 3.01 (a), (b), and (c). She requests the Tribunal to direct the Respondent to accept the recommendation of the Job Grading Appeals Board and to grade the Applicant at level 18 with effect from October 1985; (ii) The Applicant also contends that the impugned decision of the Respondent was tainted by a series of serious violations of a fair and reasonable procedure and, equally for these reasons, should be quashed by the Tribunal

In the present case the Applicant has contended that improper procedures were followed by the Respondent concerning his grading at the time when he was transferred to the Agriculture and Rural Development Department in 1975. According to documents in the Respondent’s files, which were not made available to the Applicant, the position then assigned to him, as Senior Nutrition Advisor, had a grade level (grade N) lower than that of his previous assignment as Deputy Director (grade 0). According to the same documents, the Applicant was nevertheless allowed to retain his former grade 0 but on a personal basis.
 

 The principal issue in this case is whether the Applicant has been treated unfairly, arbitrarily, in a manner falling short of due process or involving an abuse of managerial discretion. The issue arises out of the determination by the Bank that for the purpose of the 1985 Salary Review Increase the Applicant’s performance should be rated as 2+ (less than satisfactory).
 

 In this case there are two issues to be decided: (i) Was the grading of the Applicant’s position incorrect because it did not take into account the fact that the position had bilingual requirements? (ii) In the event that the grading of the position is correct, was it arbitrary for the Respondent to grandfather the Applicant’s salary at her previous grade level for only a limited period of two years? 

In this case there are two issues to be decided: (i) Was the grading of the Applicant’s position incorrect because it did not take into account the fact that the position had bilingual requirements? (ii) In the event that the grading of the position is correct, was it arbitrary for the Respondent to grandfather the Applicant’s salary at her previous grade level for only a limited period of two years? 

The issues for determination by the Tribunal are: (i) Was the JEU right to refuse the administrative review of the decision to place the Applicant’s job at level 20? (ii) Should the Tribunal order release of the audit findings? (iii) Should the Tribunal reserve the Applicant’s right to appeal to the Tribunal the decision of the VPCTR to confirm the grade of her position at level 20 until 90 days after the release of the job audit findings? 

The Tribunal identifies the following as the three remedies sought by the Applicant: (i) the rescission of the Bank’s decision to grade the Applicant at Grade 19; (ii) the making by the Bank of demonstrable efforts to place the Applicant in a Grade 22 position before September 30, 1987; (iii) the replacement of the Bank’s decision to limit the ‘grandfathering’ of the Applicant’s salary at the Grade 22 level to the period ending on September 30, 1987 by a decision that the Applicant’s salary should be ‘grandfathered’ at that level until such time as the maximum salary for Grade 19 shall have reached the level of the Applicant’s Grade 22 salary on September 30, 1987.

Withdrawal.

In her Application, as well as before the Job Grading Appeals Board, the Applicant complained that her job description was not properly understood; that the problem-solving content of the job was not properly recognized and that in the know-how section language skills were not included. She added that her job had a high level of accountability, not only within the Unit but also externally. On these grounds, the Applicant requested that her grade should be changed to level 16.

The Applicant is requesting the rescission of the decision not to accord her a grade 23, when her position was graded at level 22. She is requesting that the Respondent maintain her, for purposes of compensation administration, at grade 23, contending that she has a right to be “grandfathered” indefinitely.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s grading of her position as Administrative Secretary at level 16, rather than as Office Manager at level 17, constitutes willful and arbitrary action in violation of her contract of employment. As the Tribunal has frequently stated, a staff member’s terms of employment include pertinent staff rules promulgated by management of the Bank. Among those staff rules are those governing the standards and procedures of the Job Grading Program instituted by the Respondent in 1982.