The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s grading mechanism as applied to her case resulted in nonobservance of her contract of appointment and conditions of employment. Said non-observance, according to the Applicant, resulted from the facts that: (a) the generic criteria for the PRJ-C with a grade level 24 as applied to the Applicant did not meet the requirements of Staff Principle 6.2(b); (b) the review process of the grading decision expanded the requirements for grade level 24, by adding to them some new ones not originally enumerated in the criteria; (c) the Applicant was discriminated against by her immediate supervisors in a way that eventually reflected negatively on the grading of her position.

In her Application, as well as before the Job Grading Appeals Board, the Applicant complained of the manner in which the specialized Staff Assistant position was described, which she considered to be a transparent attempt to deny access to promotions, to negate the value of experience, skills and career development, and to renege on previous standards. She added that the decision to abolish certain grade levels and collapse all Staff Assistant grades into one E level grade was entirely arbitrary. On these grounds, the Applicant contended that the Respondent “cannot avail itself of the flaws in its own grading system or its inadequacy in distinguishing various classifications to grade Applicant at the lowest possible level.”

The Tribunal has to decide the effect of the Applicant’s letter of May 7, 1986 on his earlier complaints, namely, that no appointment letter was issued to him when he was appointed by the Respondent; that in fixing payment of his salary, the Regional Manager UNDP/World Bank project violated certain rules as a result of which violation the Applicant was denied the differential in salary to which he was entitled; and that he was not paid retirement benefits.

The Applicant claims that Staff Rule 5.09, which sets forth the basic procedures for the comprehensive Bank reorganization, is invalid. To the extent that this claim purports to assert the violation of rights of staff members other than himself, the Applicant’s application is inadmissible: Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987]. The Applicant also, however, alleges that he has suffered a particular violation of his own contract of employment as a result of the implementation of Rule 5.09. He claims that the Bank’s decision to remove him in the course of the reorganization from the position of Regional Vice President, LAC, and its appointment of another person to that position in his stead, was improper.

The Respondent claims the Applicant has no standing because she has not exhausted internal remedies as required by the Staff Rules and that there are no exceptional circumstances which warrant the waiver of the requirement that internal remedies be exhausted.  The Applicant challenges the validity of Staff Rule 5.09 which sets forth the basic procedures for the comprehensive Bank reorganization. She claims that the rule was issued without meaningful consultation, that it is substantively discriminatory and otherwise unfair, and that in particular its provision for a release of claims on the part of staff members accepting certain compensation packages upon separation from Bank service is a violation of staff members’ fundamental rights. To the extent that the Applicant purports to challenge Rule 5.09 as that rule adversely affects staff members other than herself, the Tribunal has determined that such an application is inadmissible. Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987]. The Applicant also, however, alleges that she has suffered a particular violation of her own contract of employment as a result of the reorganization and the implementation of Rule 5.09. She claims that the dispersion of the functions of her former position as Data Administrator, and her consequent inability gainfully to serve in that position, were effected unfairly, without discernible criteria, and without explanation to her. 

The Applicant challenges the validity of Staff Rule 5.09 which sets forth the basic procedures for the comprehensive Bank reorganization. He claims that the rule was issued without meaningful consultation, that it is substantively discriminatory and otherwise unfair, and that in particular its provision for a waiver of claims on the part of staff members accepting certain compensation packages upon separation from Bank service is a violation of staff members’ fundamental rights. To the extent that the Applicant purports to challenge Rule 5.09 as that rule adversely affects staff members other than himself, the Tribunal has determined that such an application is inadmissible: Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987]. To the extent that the Applicant attacks the general terms of Rule 5.09, apart from its implementation by the Respondent in a decision that affects the Applicant in particular, the Tribunal has held in the same decision that such an application is inadmissible. The Applicant also, however, alleges that he has suffered a particular violation of his own employment agreement as a result of the reorganization and the implementation of Rule 5.09.

The Applicant challenges the validity of Staff Rule 5.09 which sets forth the basic procedures for the comprehensive Bank reorganization. He claims that the rule was issued without meaningful consultation, that it is substantively discriminatory and otherwise unfair, and that in particular its provision for a waiver of claims on the part of staff members accepting certain compensation packages upon separation from Bank service is a violation of staff members’ fundamental rights. To the extent that the Applicant purports to challenge Staff Rule 5.09 as that rule adversely affects staff members other than himself, the Tribunal has determined that such an application is inadmissible: Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987]. To the extent that the Applicant attacks the general terms of Staff Rule 5.09, apart from its implementation by the Respondent in a decision that affects the Applicant in particular, the Tribunal has held in the same decision that such an application is inadmissible. The Applicant also, however, alleges that he has suffered a particular violation of his own employment contract as a result of the reorganization and the implementation of Rule 5.09.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day. The Tribunal in Agodo gave full consideration to these claims and contentions, found them to lack merit and dismissed the application. For the same reasons, the application must be dismissed in this case as well.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day.

The Applicant’s contentions can be characterized as a challenge to the procedures employed in promulgating Rule 5.09 and to the content of that Rule, particularly paragraph 12.01 requiring that staff members who terminate their employment with the Bank as a result of the reorganization and who choose certain compensation packages must release preexisting claims and waive access to the Tribunal.

The principal issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether it has power under its governing instrument to “hear and pass judgment upon” the application filed by the Staff Association. The Respondent contends that the Staff Association is altogether without standing to file any application to initiate a proceeding before the Tribunal and, therefore, lacks standing to assert any challenge to the validity of Staff Rule 5.09.

There are two issues in these consolidated applications: (i) In the case of both applications, is interest payable by the Bank on the increases arising out of the salary structural adjustments effective May 1, 1986, agreed to by the Bank on November 20, 1986, but not paid until nine months later on January 31, 1987? The Applicants claim that it is and the Bank that it is not. (ii) In the case of the application of Mary Homsieh only, is the decision of the Executive Directors that an individual who, like her, has progressed to the upper limit of her grade, will not be entitled to receive merit increases up to the extended limit of her grade, unless she has had 15 years service in the same grade, a violation of her acquired rights and therefore null and void? She claims that it is and the Bank that there is no such decision.

The Respondent contends that the decisions on salary adjustments are taken by the Executive Directors and that the President's recommendations are not binding and do not create rights or obligations as between the Bank and the staff. The second jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondent relates to the Applicants' plea subsequent to the resumption of the case. The initial applications, the Respondent argues, were directed against decisions made in 1984 and relating to the 1984 compensation review. It is, therefore, on these decisions only that the Tribunal is requested, and has jurisdiction, to rule. The decision made on June 10, 1986, is totally different from the 1984 salary adjustment decisions; if the Applicants wished to impugn the 1986 decision, they should have done so by separate applications filed within the time-limit provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal. The Applicants claims relate to Parallelism with the Fund and salary increases.