The principal issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr. Skandera's services were terminated “for any cause,” as provided in the letter offering him an appointment. The Bank has conceded that the reasons for its action were other than the one stated in the termination notice, namely, the request of the Government of Lesotho. The true reasons were those set forth in four written documents (referred to in paragraphs 9, 11, and 13 above), of which only the last was actually communicated to Mr. Skandera. Taking into consideration the arguments of the Applicant and the Respondent as set forth above, the Tribunal finds that reasonable grounds existed on which the Bank could validly reach a decision to terminate the appointment of Mr. Skandera. Although Mr. Skandera asserts that his services were needed and that the quality of his work was adequate and was indeed favorably regarded by some Lesotho officials, it is clear (and his letter of appointment explicitly so provides) that the authority to decide such matters lay with his supervisors at the Bank. Mr. Skandera claims that the Bank's decision to terminate his appointment was based upon such motives as hatred, malice, prejudice and bad faith. For the reasons already given, however, the Tribunal is of the view that the termination was not improperly motivated.

The issue before the Tribunal is whether the application in this case was filed within the proper time limit. 

The first consideration is whether the Bank was justified in its conclusion that the Applicant’s performance was unsatisfactory. The second question is whether the Respondent acted fairly in relation to the Applicant. At the beginning of that period of probation she was assigned non-secretarial duties; afterwards she was led to believe that the improvement in and concentration on her purely secretarial duties, together with an expression of regret for her unwise reaction in April, would result in confirmation; that such an outcome depended on current and future performance rather than past history.

The decision to terminate the Applicant's appointment was based on “his failure to give satisfactory service in the position he occupies”, as provided in Administrative Manual Statement No. 108. According to Article V, Section 5 (b) of the Bank's Articles of Agreement the President has the power to dismiss staff members if their services are unsatisfactory. The determination whether a staff member's performance is unsatisfactory is a matter within the Respondent's discretion and responsibility. The Administration's appraisal in that respect is final, unless the decision constitutes an abuse of discretion, being arbitrary, discriminatory, improperly motivated or carried out in violation of a fair and reasonable procedure.

The central issue before the Tribunal in this case is whether the Respondent has violated the contract of employment or terms of appointment of the Applicant by improperly terminating his employment for unsatisfactory performance and by making arrangements for this termination which in the Applicant's estimation fell short of those to which he was entitled under regulations and practice in force at the time of the termination.

Respondent requests dismissal of the application because it was not filed within the time prescribed by Article XVII or Article II, paragraph 2 of the Statute of this Tribunal, and because the Applicant failed to exhaust all other remedies available to her as required by Article II, paragraph 2 (i) of the Statute.

Applicants filed their applications on December 4, 1980, and thus, more than 90 days after the entry into force of the Statute under its Article XVII, that is to say by September 29, 1980. The Tribunal has no authority to consider applications filed after that date.

The Applicant claims his contract of employment was violated because his appointment was terminated without cause, with malice and bad faith, and with gross negligence. Applicant was denied due process by virtue of the procedure whereby his termination was effected. Although his notice of termination stated that it was at the request of the Lesotho Government, the World Bank now admits that this assertion was not the truth. The Bank also violated Applicant's contract of employment by failing, contrary to the rules in force, to make available to him automobile transportation when he asserted medical justification; and by otherwise creating conditions of employment which severely impaired his health and caused chronic injuries to his lung and knee.

For these reasons, the Tribunal unanimously decides: (1) that the Respondent shall pay Applicant a sum equal to three months' net base salary; and (2) that the application is otherwise rejected.

The Tribunal is presented in this, the first case to be decided by it, with the question whether the implementation in relation to the Applicants of the decisions adopted on May 25, 1979 by the Executive Directors of the Bank regarding tax reimbursement and salary adjustment amounts to non-observance by the Bank of the contracts of employment or terms of appointment of the Applicants. The legal issues involved in this question are basic and important. They do not lend themselves to summary treatment.