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.

Withdrawal.

Withdrawal.

The issues before the Tribunal are the interpretation and validity of the release provision contained in the agreement establishing the conditions for the Applicant’s separation from the Bank.

In this case, the Applicant’s ninth presentation to the Tribunal, he complains against the decision to grant him as a result of the 1984 salary review a salary increase which was 2.0% less than the 4.0% uniform salary adjustment to the salary structure. This application is substantially similar to that filed by the Applicant in Decision No. 22 concerning his 1983 salary increase, insofar as it questions the failure to grant the Applicant in 1984 a salary increase equivalent to the uniform adjustment to the salary structure.

In this case, the Applicant’s eighth presentation to the Tribunal, he requests revision under Article XIII of its Statute, of the Tribunal’s judgment in Decision No. 22 of March 22, 1985. Article XIII allows for a limited exception to the general principle that judgments are “final and without appeal” enunciated in Article XI of the Statute. This exception is limited to the event of the “discovery of a fact which by its nature might have had a decisive influence on the judgment of the Tribunal and which at the time the judgment was delivered was unknown both to the Tribunal and to that party.”

The first issue that the Tribunal must address is whether the Respondent’s failure to pay to the Applicant a “safety-net” tax allowance violates his contract of employment or the terms of his appointment.  The Tribunal must also decide whether the Respondent has committed a further violation of the Applicant’s terms of employment by breaching certain assurances of confidentiality given by Bank officials in the handling of tax data submitted by staff members claiming the safety-net reimbursement.

The issue before the Tribunal in this case is whether the Respondent failed to observe the provisions of the contract of employment or the terms of appointment of the Applicant by refusing to confirm her at the end of her probation and by terminating her employment as of June 30, 1985.

The Applicant contests the decision to terminate her employment at the end of her probationary period on three grounds: (i) The Bank’s failure to consult all her supervisors prior to termination, which resulted in the evaluation of her performance being biased; (ii) The Bank’s failure to provide ongoing coaching and feedback during the probationary period, as required by PMS 4.02; and (iii) The Bank’s failure to prepare Anniversary Evaluation Reports, in violation of PMS 4.01, which is applicable to probationary officers in accordance with PMS 4.02.