The Applicant is one of sixteen current and former staff members working in the Bank’s Department of Institutional Integrity (“INT”) contesting decisions taken by the Bank in August 2008 not to award the entire relief, in particular monetary compensation, recommended by an INT Staff Grievance Review Panel (“Grievance Panel”).

The Applicant challenges the Bank's decision not to select her for a level GC Program Assistant position

This case deals with the Applicant’s claim that the Bank denied him an accurate employment history by not filling the apparent gaps in the official records of his employment.

The Applicant seeks compensation for unfair dismissal and for the Bank’s alleged failure to comply with the recommendations of the Appeals Committee, as approved by the Vice President of Human Resources (“HRSVP”) on 20 December 2005.

The Applicant challenges the Bank‟s conduct in three respects: (i) External Service; (ii) 2006-2007 Overall Performance Evaluation (“2007 OPE”); and (iii) 2006-2007 Salary Review Increase (“2007 SRI”).

The Applicant challenges a decision of the Pension Benefits Administration Committee (“PBAC”) to deny her request for distribution of her former spouse’s pension pursuant to the spousal support order issued by a U.S. court. The ground of the denial was that her former spouse (“Mr. X”) had not commenced a pension under the terms of the Staff Retirement Plan (“SRP” or “Plan”).

The Applicant alleges in her Application that the Bank (1) failed to provide her with a work environment free of harassment and abuse of authority from September 2004 to May 2006; (2) failed to protect her after she raised her concerns with the Bank; (3) breached her confidentiality and defamed her character from 2004 through 2007; (4) retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the Department of Institutional Integrity (“INT”) by interfering with her job search; and (5) failed to renew her contract of employment.

This case is about the Applicant’s entitlement to receive an unreduced pension at age 50 under the rules of the Staff Retirement Plan (“SRP”) in conjunction with a Pension Transfer Agreement (“Transfer Agreement”) between the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (“ADB”). 

The Bank’s Pension Benefits Administration Committee (“PBAC”) decided that the Applicant’s election to restore his prior pension service had to be made within a fiveyear period which ran from the day the Bank informed him of the restoration opportunity by an e-mail message which he apparently never read. The Applicant challenges this decision.

This case is an appeal from the decision of the Bank’s Pension Benefits Administration Committee (“PBAC”) on 29 July 2008 denying the Applicant’s request for €6,273 as compensation for the Bank’s delay in payment of the commutation portion of his pension

The Applicant contests: (1) the Bank’s decision to withhold notification to him of the fact and content of its referrals of confidential and personnel information to the United States (“U.S.”) Department of Justice, Fraud Section (“DOJ”), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations Division (“IRS”), the Swiss authorities, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (“U.S. Attorney’s Office”); and (2) the Bank’s decision not to conduct a preliminary investigation into the Applicant’s complaint of a violation of his confidentiality by the release of confidential information to a reporter for U.S. News & World Report.

This case deals with the Applicant’s claim that the Bank’s decision that he had engaged in misconduct was unfounded and that the disciplinary measures imposed, particularly the restriction of access to World Bank premises, were unwarranted and disproportionate to his conduct and should be withdrawn.

Withdrawal.

The Applicant first complains that on 31 January 2007 his employment was improperly terminated for the second time for alleged business reasons in spite of his strong performance and experience, after he had been induced to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) in unfair circumstances. The MOU contained a waiver of his rights of recourse to the Bank’s dispute-settlement bodies, including this Tribunal. The Applicant now challenges the validity of this MOU.

The Applicant seeks (i) the invalidation of the Bank’s decision not to renew her employment contract and (ii) redress for breach of confidentiality and retaliation.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to place her on paid administrative leave in response to her alleged unauthorized disclosure of certain confidential Bank documents relating to the investigation of Bank-financed projects in India by the Department of Institutional Integrity (“INT”).

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to place him on paid administrative leave in response to his alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential Bank documents relating to INT’s investigation of Bank-financed projects in India.

The Applicant in this case requests that the Tribunal order the Bank no longer to apply its mandatory retirement age policy or, alternatively, to modify its policy with regard to former Non-Regular staff members (“NRS”), such as herself, covered under the Net Pension Plan by raising the mandatory retirement age for herself and those employees to at least 65.

The Applicant challenges her Overall Performance Evaluation for 2004-2005 (“2005 OPE”) and for 2005-2006 (“2006 OPE”), in the course of which, she claims, the Vice President of Human Resources (“HRSVP”) and the World Bank Institute (“WBI”) colluded against her. She also challenges her Salary Review Increase (“SRI”) in conjunction with the 2005 OPE. In addition, she complains of the allegedly unauthorized extraction of a message from her Bank e-mail account at the request of her supervisor. She requests monetary compensation of a total of eight years’ salary for the “mismanagement of the performance review process,” for the “terminal destruction” of her career, and for “threatening [her] professional survival and employment at the Bank”; an independent reevaluation of her work for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006; reinstatement to a level GH; the establishment and promulgation of guidelines on reinstatement; and full reimbursement of legal and other costs.

The Bank permanently barred the Applicant from future Bank employment and from access to Bank premises after its internal investigations determined that the Applicant had engaged in misconduct. This is the challenged decision.