The Applicant challenges a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Review Panel denying her claim for compensation for an illness which she claims was caused by work related stress.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decisions not to include him on the short-lists for three Grade H (“GH”) level positions he had applied for in 2008.

The Applicant‟s main claims are that the International Finance Corporation (“IFC”) breached the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) concluded between him and IFC in 2005 and that it engaged in a series of inappropriate actions in relation to his personal life.

The Applicant alleges that the Bank breached a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) signed between her and the Bank and continues to deny her due process rights by (1) not complying with the Tribunal’s order in Lansky (No. 1 and No. 2), Decision No. 425 [2009], and (2) handling her disability claims inappropriately.

The Applicant challenges the Bank‟s decision not to extend her contract of employment beyond its two-year term, or to provide her with a new contract of employment, alleging that the Bank abused its discretion and subjected her to unfair and arbitrary treatment.

This case is about whether the Application is admissible before the Tribunal. The Applicant‟s claim relates to the timing of a benefits claim in connection with some $19,000 in home leave benefits for travel expenses incurred in 2003. The amount itself does not appear to be in dispute.

The Applicant challenges the ratings in her Overall Performance Evaluations (“OPE”) for 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 (“2007 OPE”) and 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008 (“2008 OPE”). The Applicant also challenges the corresponding Salary Review Increases (“SRI”) which she received for both these periods.

The Applicant disputes the imposition of a bar from working for the Bank and accessing its premises, first on a temporary basis and, after further investigation, on a permanent basis.

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

The Applicant challenges: (a) Decision by the Bank, acting through the apparatus of the Appeals Committee Executive Secretariat and the Panel Chair in [Appeals] Nos. 1454 and 1460, Ms. Suzana de Campos Abbott, to deny me due process and a proper hearing of my claims as guaranteed by the Staff Rules; to expressly deny me the right to cross-examine witnesses; to consciously and deliberately misstate and misapply Bank rules and Appeals Committee rules and procedures in order to frustrate my claims; to claim a willful and deliberate ignorance of those rules and procedures, of case pleadings, and of Bank jurisprudence generally in order to avoid actual adjudication of the issues raised by my claims; (b) Decision by Ms. Glasow, Executive Secretary to the Appeals Committee, and Ms. Suzana de Campos Abbott, Panel Chair, to collude by manipulating evidence and procedure at the February 26, 2009 hearing in [Appeals Nos.] 1454 and 1460 to provide spurious grounds for defending the Bank’s provocation of a “security incident” in connection with my return to the Bank at 5:40 p.m. on March 7, 2009, leading to a manufactured assault charge against me.

The Applicant claims that the Respondent improperly denied him a position at the International Finance Corporation (“IFC”), failed to assist him in his job search, and terminated his employment improperly.

The Applicant challenges his 2007 Performance Evaluation and Planning (“PEP”), 2007 salary review increase (“SRI”), the Respondent‟s decision to place him on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”), and its decision to remove him from the lead responsibility on a project known as the “PBH Project.

The Applicant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s judgment in Lansky (No. 1 and No. 2), Decision No. 425 [2009], pursuant to Article XIII of the Statute of the Tribunal. The Applicant asks the Tribunal to reconsider its decision on the basis that she received, from the lawyer who represented her in her earlier proceedings, documents and information that she alleges were not available to her or the Tribunal at the time the judgment was rendered.  

In her ninth application filed with the Tribunal on 20 July 2009 the Applicant challenged, inter alia, the Bank’s revocation of her access to her Bank e-mail account, its blocking of her access to the Bank’s e-mail system, the role of certain managers and the Bank’s Department of Institutional Integrity (“INT”) in the decisions leading to the revocation of her e-mail privileges, and the alleged improper procedures followed in the revocation of such privileges.  In Yoon (No. 9), Decision No. 429 [2010], rendered in March 2010, the Tribunal found no wrongdoing on the part of the Bank in revoking the Applicant’s e-mail access, and dismissed all her claims.  

The Applicant challenges the following actions: Decision by Ms. Jodi Glasow, Executive Secretary, Peer Review Services [formerly Appeals Committee], to violate, bypass, set aside, and disregard the rules, practices, and procedures of the World Bank in facilitating, promoting, managing the process of, and structuring the decision-making process leading to, the decision attributed to the Panel in AC No. 1465 to consolidate that case with AC Nos. 1493 and 1494. Decision by Ms. Jodi Glasow, Executive Secretary, Peer Review Services, and/or Mr. Gerard Byam, Panel Chair, and the Panel in AC 1465, to move towards consolidation of AC No. 1465 with cases Nos. 1493 and 1494 at a time when their jurisdictional parameters had neither been tested nor established, and without giving Appellant an adequate right to respond. Decision by Ms. Jodi Glasow, Executive Secretary, Peer Review Services, and/or Mr. Gerard Byam, Panel Chair, and the Panel in AC 1465, to arrange the indefinite postponement, without cause, of the hearing scheduled for AC No. 1465 without any justifiable basis or foundation. Decision by Ms. Jodi Glasow, Executive Secretary, Peer Review Services, and/or Mr. Gerard Byam, Panel Chair, and the Panel in AC 1465, to threaten cancellation of the hearing scheduled by the Panel in AC No. 1465 in violation of, and completely disregarding, the rules, practices, and procedures of the World Bank.  Decision by Ms. Jodi Glasow, Executive Secretary, Peer Review Services, and/or Mr. Gerard Byam, Panel Chair, and the Panel in AC 1465, and/or Ms. Anna Bjerde, Panel Chair, and the Panel in AC 1497, to arrange the consolidation of AC Nos. 1465, 1493, and 1494 further with AC No. 1497, without adequate cause or basis, in violation of the rules, practices, and procedures of the World Bank. Decision by Ms. Jodi Glasow, Executive Secretary, Peer Review Services, to withhold the Respondent's Answer in AC No. 1493 to Appellant far longer than is acceptable under Bank rules, procedures, and precedents, raising the question of whether the recorded date of the Answer is accurate or falsified. Decision by Ms. Jodi Glasow, Executive Secretary, Peer Review Services, to withhold the Respondent's Answer in AC No. 1497 far longer than is acceptable under Bank rules, procedures, and precedents. Decision by Ms. Jodi Glasow, Executive Secretary, Peer Review Services, to provide an incomplete or doctored transcript to Appellant for the hearing in cases AC Nos. 1455 and 1466, and to justify her action by falsely advising Appellant and the WBAT Executive Secretariat that the transcript was in fact a full and complete record of that hearing, while knowing full well that it was not.

The Applicant‟s claims that (i) she was denied an appropriate work program; (ii) she was placed improperly on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”); and (iii) her employment was terminated improperly on the basis of unsatisfactory performance under the PIP.

The Applicant claims that the decision to reassign her to a technical position and the decision shortly thereafter to conduct a Supplementary Performance Evaluation going back four years were de facto disciplinary measures and constituted an abuse of discretion.

The Applicant claims that the decision to reassign her to a non-managerial position and the decision shortly thereafter to conduct a Supplementary Performance Evaluation going back four years were de facto disciplinary measures and constituted an abuse of discretion

The Applicant contests, inter alia, the Bank’s revocation of her right to access her Bank’s e-mail account, its blocking of her access to the Bank’s e-mail system, the role of the Department of Institutional Integrity (“INT”) in the decisions leading to the revocation of her e-mail privileges, and the alleged improper procedures followed in the revocation of such privileges.

The Applicant claims that, in violation of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) concluded between her and the Bank, the Bank has failed to provide her with a letter of reference covering her 28 years of service with the Bank to aid her in searching for jobs following her retirement from the Bank’s service. She also contends that various supervisors in the course of her career at the Bank retaliated against her for reporting mismanagement and misuse of trust funds, for which she demands compensation.