The Applicant challenges: (i) the decision not to shortlist him for the position of Lead Specialist (Bank Procurement Reform), Level GH, Job No. 131690, in the Operation Risk Management Department (OPSOR); (ii) the subsequent decision of the Shortlisting Committee (SLC) for Job No. 131690 not to begin the selection process anew once the seriousness of an alleged conflict of interest involving the Chair of the SLC, Mr. B, was recognized; and (iii) the decision of the SLC for Job No. 131690 that relationships between some of its members and some of the internal candidates did not rise to the level of a conflict of interest.

The Applicant claims that she lacked the capacity to sign the Mutually Agreed Separation Agreement (MAS) signed in 1995 and that she did so under duress. The Bank has raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Application. This judgment addresses that objection.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decisions concerning the publication of allegations by the Argentine newspaper, La Nación, of wrongdoing in a Bank-financed project. He seeks damages for loss of earnings, emotional distress and reputational harm.

The Applicant challenges: (i) the non-extension of her Extended Term Consultant (ETC) contract; (ii) her non-selection for Job Vacancy No. 122592; (iii) the mismanagement of her career; and (iv) “[v]iolation of various promises, including explicit promises that she would be hired for at least two years and that, when hired, she would be working on certain specific tasks.”

The Applicant complains about her non-participation in Bank pension and nonpayment of termination grant. The Bank has raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Application. This judgment addresses that objection

The Applicant challenges: (i) the Bank’s decision not to shortlist her for Lead Disaster Risk Management Specialist, Level GH, in the Latin America and Caribbean Region (LAC), Vacancy No. 130160; (ii) her non-selection to the Lead Disaster Risk Management Specialist position, Level GH, in the Africa Region (AFR), Vacancy No. 123059; and (iii) her non-selection to the Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist position, Level GG, in Europe and Central Asia Region (ECA), Vacancy No. 122383.

Withdrawal. 

Withdrawal.

The Applicant claims that the Bank destroyed his personal property and failed to compensate him. The Bank has raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Applicant’s claims. This judgment addresses that objection.

In this case, the Bank has raised a preliminary objection in which it requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the ground that the Applicant’s claims are inadmissible under Article II(2)(i) of the Statute of the Tribunal.

The Applicant contends that his 2012 Overall Performance Evaluation (OPE) and Salary Review Increase (SRI) were arbitrary and procedurally flawed. He also challenges the Bank’s decision not to undertake a salary review at his request.

The Applicant challenges: (i) his resignation; (ii) the Bank’s decision not to confirm his appointment; (iii) his interim Overall Performance Evaluation (OPE); (iv) his placement on administrative leave and the restriction of his access to Bank premises; (v) his work on a “[j]ob that [he] did not sign up for”; and (vi) an “[i]nefficacious work environment.”

The Applicant challenges the July 2013 decision of the Vice President and Corporate Secretary (VPCS) to terminate his employment on the ground of unsatisfactory performance and his treatment by the Bank.

The Applicant seeks rescission of the 16 July 2013 decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) that the Applicant committed misconduct as defined by Staff Rule 3.00.

The Applicant challenges the 16 July 2013 decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) that the Applicant committed misconduct as defined by Staff Rule 3.00.

In his Application, the Applicant raised numerous claims of, among other things, discrimination, harassment and retaliation during his appointment with the Bank. The Bank raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of all but three of the Applicant’s claims on the ground he had failed to exhaust other remedies available within the Bank Group within the prescribed 120-day period. Following an exchange of pleadings on the preliminary objection, in Decision No. 494 [2014], the Tribunal held four of the Applicant’s claims, involving allegations of discrimination and retaliation, to be admissible. This judgment addresses the merits of those claims. The Tribunal concluded that the record did not support the Applicant’s remaining claims. The Application was dismissed.

Withdrawal.

Withdrawal.

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

The Applicant raises claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and “insults.” He alleges that he, along with two other colleagues, suffered treatment designed “to make [their] work difficult and [to] discourage” them from continuing to work for the Bank. The Bank has raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of most of the Applicant’s claims. This judgment addresses that objection.