The Applicant has raised the following claims: (i) invalidity of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of 1 April 2014 between the Applicant and the IFC because the Applicant allegedly signed it under duress and coercion exerted by the IFC; (ii) wrongful termination of his contract; and (iii) breach of a confidentiality provision in the MOU.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to terminate her employment pursuant to the declaration of redundancy of her position issued on 29 September 2014

The Applicant requests the Tribunal to either adjudicate his claims concerning his 2013 Overall Performance Evaluation (OPE) and Salary Review Increase (SRI), and placement on an Opportunity to Improve Unsatisfactory Performance Plan (OTI) or, in the alternative, order the reinstatement and continuation of Peer Review Services (PRS) Request for Review No. 186. The Bank challenges the admissibility of the Applicant’s claims on the grounds that he waived them in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which he signed with the Bank on 3 September 20

The Applicant challenges the 25 October 2013 decision by his Director to reassign him to a non-managerial position. In addition, the Applicant challenges the subsequent decision by the Vice President and General Counsel of the IFC to make payment of compensation for procedural flaws associated with the reassignment decision contingent upon the Applicant signing a waiver of all claims in this matter.

The Applicant challenges the 17 September 2014 decision not to renew her Term contract.

The Applicant challenges, first, the May 2005 decision of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to change his International Open contract to a Local Term contract. Second, he seeks compensation for additional work undertaken beyond his terms of reference. Third, he challenges the IFC’s failure to inform him of the existence of a Disability Fund, and seeks compensation for the cost of paying for his wife to accompany him on official duties when he developed a serious medical condition, and costs associated with seeking treatment for this condition.

The Applicant has raised three principal claims: her 2012-13 Overall Performance Evaluation (2013 OPE) lacked an observable and reasonable basis and was unfair, unbalanced, and conducted with procedural irregularities so as to constitute an abuse of discretion; her 2013 Salary Review Increase (2013 SRI) rating was improper and inconsistent with her OPE; and the Bank mismanaged her career.

The Applicant challenges a number of decisions of the IFC relating to the January 2010 cancellation of his G4 visa and various legal fees he incurred as a result, his subsequent placement on a Short Term Assignment, and a December 2011 Memorandum of Understanding which he claims to have signed under duress. He also claims separation payments allegedly due to him when his employment with the IFC ended in January 2013.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision dated 12 February 2014 to deny him a Mobility Premium.

The Applicant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation, covering the period 1 July 2012 through 30 June 2013, and the subsequent salary increase she was granted by the IFC. She also alleges that IFC management discriminated and retaliated against her in assessing her performance because she has a medical condition which prevented her from processing certain transactions.

The Applicant contests his 2013 Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP), 2013 Salary Review Increase (SRI), the associated percentage increase of 1.63%, and the decision to terminate his employment upon expiration of his term contract.

The Applicant challenges the: a) 13 May 2014 institution of an Opportunity to Improve Unsatisfactory Performance Plan (OTI); b) 2 June 2014 closure of the OTI and recommendation of termination; c) 3 June 2014 decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) finding misconduct and imposing sanctions; and d) the 7 July 2014 Notice of Termination.

The Applicant is challenging the Bank’s decision not to compensate him for 32.5 days of consulting work that he maintains he performed.

The Applicant challenges the non-extension of her Short-Term Consultancy (STC) contract and raises claims of discrimination and retaliation against the Bank.

Application summarily dismissed.

A review of the Applicant’s second Application clearly shows that he is seeking to relitigate his allegations and claims which were addressed in the Tribunal’s Decision No. 500. Application dismissed.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision of 26 February 2014 notifying him that his Term appointment would not be renewed after its expiry on 30 September 2014. He alleges that the Bank “fabricated” reasons for the non-renewal of his appointment and that it was in fact an act of retaliation related to (i) his outspoken support of reform initiatives at the Bank and (ii) the fact that he had reported his Manager’s allegedly harassing behavior to his Director. He also makes a separate claim that he was harassed by his Manager.

The Applicant challenges the 7 August 2014 decision of the Vice President of Human Resources (HRVP) finding that she committed misconduct and imposing disciplinary measures.

The Applicant challenges the 30 May 2014 decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) that the Applicant had violated Staff Rule 3.00, paragraphs 6.01(b) and 6.01(c), and Staff Rule 3.01, paragraph 4.02, and the disciplinary measures imposed.

Invoking Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Applicant seeks the revision of three judgments of the Tribunal.