The Applicant challenges: (i) the Bank’s decision not to confirm his appointment; (ii) his interim Overall Performance Evaluation (“OPE”); and (iii) his placement on administrative leave and the restriction of his access to Bank premises.

This case involves a complaint of the Applicant in respect of the decisions of the Respondent: (i) to declare his position redundant on June 22, 2000 in terms of Staff Rule 7.01, on the basis of the abolition of his position; and (ii) to award him on August 9, 2000 a low merit award which led to his being awarded a 2% increase in salary.

The Applicant claims that the Bank failed to reinstate him in accordance with a prior judgment of the Tribunal. The Bank raised preliminary objections stating that the Application was untimely. In M (No. 2), Decision No. 469 [2012], this Tribunal dismissed the Bank’s preliminary objections

The Applicant is contesting his 2009 Overall Performance Evaluation (“OPE”); his 2009 salary review increase (“SRI”) rating of 3.1 and salary increase of 1.5%; the Bank’s decision to recall him from his duty station to Washington, DC; the various public messages circulated in August 2009 about his recall; the threat of termination allegedly made by his Sector Director; and the 26 October 2009 substitution of his 2009 OPE.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to terminate his appointment on grounds of non-confirmation and its failure (i) to take his medical condition into account when deciding not to confirm his appointment and terminate his employment; (ii) to require him to undergo a fitness for duty assessment prior to terminating his employment; and (iii) to inform him of the possibility of taking medical leave and being placed on the Bank’s Short Term Disability program.

Summarily dismissed.

Withdrawal.

The Applicant challenges the alleged decision by the Bank to transmit information regarding restrictions imposed by the Bank on her access to the Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union (“BFSFCU”), a non-Bank entity located on the Bank’s premises. The Applicant also contends that the Bank transmitted to the BFSFCU information containing derogatory and defamatory allegations, and failed to notify or warn the Applicant of the wrongful transmission of such information to the BFSFCU, depriving her, inter alia, of any opportunity to respond or defend herself. While the Applicant frames the Application in the context of disclosure of confidential information to persons or entities outside the Bank Group, the Tribunal finds that the essence of the Applicant’s twenty-first application is the restriction of the Applicant’s access to physical premises which was addressed in Yoon (Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17 & 18), Decision No. 447 [2011]. 

The Applicant’s request for anonymity was granted on 17 January 2012. On 15 September 2011, the Tribunal granted the Applicant’s request for provisional relief pursuant to Rule 13 of the Tribunal’s Rules and ordered the Bank to suspend implementation of its decision to terminate her employment pending the Tribunal’s judgment on the merits of the case

Withdrawal.

Withdrawal.

The Applicant claims that the Bank failed to reinstate him in accordance with a prior judgment of the Tribunal. The Bank has raised preliminary objections stating that the Application is untimely. The present judgment deals only with the Bank‟s preliminary objections.

The Applicant requests that the Tribunal “interpret and clarify the term "net of taxes” in its award of compensation in AS, Decision No. 416 [2009].

The Applicant challenges the validity of a Mutually Agreed Separation agreement (MAS) she signed in 2002 pursuant to which she was precluded from receiving an early unreduced pension at the age of 50. The Bank filed a preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Application. This judgment addresses that preliminary objection.

The Applicant made requests for provisional relief and anonymity. On 7 December 2011 the request for provisional relief was denied and his request for anonymity was granted. The World Bank Group Staff Association (―Staff Association‖) filed an amicus curiae brief on 1 March 2012.

The Applicant claims that the Bank failed to: (i) investigate his allegations of “double-dipping” in his unit; (ii) investigate his allegations of retaliation; and (iii) provide him with whistleblowing protection. The Bank raised preliminary objections stating that these claims had been waived pursuant to a “Mutually Agreed Early Out Separation: Retirement” agreement (“MAS”). The present judgment deals only with the Bank’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to deny an upward adjustment to his salary following a salary review by the Bank’s Human Resources Compensation Management Unit (“HRSCM”). He also challenges the Bank’s decision to “refuse any consideration” of his request to initiate an inquiry into his allegations of racial discrimination.

The Applicant challenges his Overall Performance Evaluation (“OPE”) covering the period 1 April 2008―31 March 2009 (“the OPE period”) and his 2009 Salary Review Increase (“SRI”) as unfair, an abuse of power, in violation of relevant Staff Rules and influenced by a conflict of interest on the part of his manager.

The Applicant challenges the Bank's decision not to confirm his probationary appointment.

Application dismissed.