The Applicant challenges the decision of the Bank to declare her employment redundant.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to terminate his employment for misconduct.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to pay her on-call compensation and requests retroactive pay for prior years of on-call services. The Applicant asserts that the Bank acts in a discriminatory manner by paying on-call compensation to some World Bank staff members who are also on the duty officer roster. She contends that the Bank’s decision not to make the on-call compensation policy public constitutes a failure to meet the necessary standard of transparency.

In his Application, the Applicant challenges the “decision notified by the [Bank] to the Tribunal on September 17, 2012 refusing to adjust [his] salary” following the Tribunal’s Judgment No. 463 dated 27 June 2012. The Bank has filed a preliminary objection to the Application. This judgment addresses that objection

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to terminate his employment for misconduct

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to pay him on-call compensation and requests retroactive pay for prior years of on-call services. The Applicant further asserts that the Bank acts in a discriminatory manner by paying on-call compensation to some World Bank staff members who are also on the duty officer roster. He contends that the Bank’s decision not to make the on-call compensation policy public constitutes a failure to meet the necessary standard of transparency.

The Applicant challenges: (i) the decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (“HRVP”) barring him from all future employment with the Bank and from access to its premises based on the findings of the Bank’s Integrity Vice Presidency (“INT”) and (ii) the length of the misconduct investigation and the decision-making process.

The Applicant challenges the 12 September 2012 decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (“HRVP”) to terminate his employment for misconduct.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to select her for the position of Resource Management (“RM”) Assistant, Level GD, Global Partnerships and Trust Fund Operations (“CFPTO”) and raises allegations of career mismanagement and retaliation

The Applicant challenges the decision of 14 September 2012 of the Pension Benefits Administration Committee (“PBAC”), which upheld the decision of 8 June 2012 of the Pension Benefits Administrator, to deduct spousal support payments in the amount of $1,500 from the Applicant’s monthly pension and pay them directly to Nélida Cubile-Lecuona, the Intervenor.

The Applicant requested anonymity pursuant to Rule 28 of the Tribunal’s Rules. The Bank opposed that request. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Applicant’s request for anonymity is hereby granted.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decisions: (i) to abolish her position and to allow her term appointment to lapse; (ii) not to select her for the position of Manager, Total Compensation; and (iii) not to shortlist her for the positions of Manager, Corporate Units, and Director, Shared Services

In this Application, his second to the Tribunal, the Applicant challenges the termination of his employment on the ground the Bank failed to provide him the reasonable accommodation of reassignment to a vacant position outside the unit in which he worked, as he alleges was recommended by his doctors and those appointed by the Bank’s Disability Administrator (Reed Group).

The Applicant challenges his 2010 Overall Performance Evaluation (“OPE”) covering the period 1 April 2009 to 30 June 2010, and 2010 Salary Review Increase (“SRI”) rating and corresponding increase.

The Applicant challenges the decision that she was still disabled on 18 May 2012 and eligible for Long Term Disability benefits, such that her World Bank employment was terminated. She contends, among other things, that a wrong standard was applied and that the medical evaluations undertaken were influenced by the Bank’s Health Services Department and a performance evaluation of which she was unaware and to which she had no opportunity to respond. She also claims that her termination was discriminatory.

The Applicant contests the termination of his employment on grounds of abandonment of office pursuant to Staff Rule 7.01, paragraph 9.02, arguing that this wrongful dismissal was the culmination of a series of unjustified actions by the Bank.

The Applicant challenges the February 2012 decision of the Acting Chief Ethics Officer to refuse to investigate his allegations of misconduct.

The Applicant seeks a review of the Tribunal’s decisions on his earlier applications in Pal, Decision No. 365 [2007] and Pal (No. 2), Decision No. 406 [2009].

The Applicant contests the decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (“HRSVP”) to impose disciplinary measures on him for misconduct, in the form of a written censure in his personnel file for five years and reassignment to a non-managerial position at the same grade level.

The Applicant challenges: (i) the Bank’s 2011 decision not to select him for a Portfolio Manager position; (ii) the Bank’s 2011 decision to renew his Term contract for only one year; and (iii) the Bank’s 2012 decision not to renew his Term contract.