The Applicant contests the decision to terminate his employment with the Bank on 26 October 2007 as a result of an investigation by the Department of Institutional Integrity (“INT”).

This case concerns the non-confirmation of a staff member on probation. The Applicant complains that the decision of the International Finance Corporation (“IFC”) to terminate his employment by non-confirmation was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on improper motives and violated due process.

The Applicant challenges the decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (“HRSVP”) of 25 May 2006, as amended on 11 September 2007, to bar him for one year from future employment with the Bank and from access to Bank facilities. The Applicant seeks to cancel and withdraw the HRSVP’s letter from his file, and to receive compensation equivalent to 60 days of salary at his established rate for, inter alia, alleged reputational damage.

The Applicant's appeal was untimely because he did not submit his request for an extension of time to file an appeal until 19 December 2006. Given this failure to exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner, the Application is inadmissible under Article II, Paragraph 2(i) of the Tribunal's Statute.

The Applicant claims that the Bank wrongfully terminated an agreement with her for external service and that it failed to protect her personnel information and reputation.

This case concerns an appeal against the decision taken by the Pension Benefits Administration Committee (“PBAC”) on 11 July 2007, which confirmed the decision of the Pension Plan (“Plan”) Administrator of 9 February 2007 to (a) accept and comply with an Order from the Maryland Circuit Court for Montgomery County (“the Circuit Court”) dated 29 September 2005, granting the Applicant‟s former wife certain payments to be deducted from the Applicant‟s pension and (b) continue suspension of a part of his commutation payment pending the outcome of the appeal by the Applicant of an Amended Order entered by the Circuit Court.

The Applicant has not pointed to anything in the correspondence which is defamatory and which caused harm to him in his litigation in the Maryland Court proceedings. The Bank reasonably believed that it was important to adhere to its practice of not sharing communications from spouses with the staff member, unless there was an authorization to do so, or the information in those communications was to be used in a manner that would adversely affect the staff member. There is no evidence that the Bank used the information contained in these letters to make any decision that adversely affected the Applicant.

The Applicant challenges the decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRSVP) of 25 May 2006 to bar him permanently from future employment with the Bank and access to Bank facilities. He also challenges the Managing Director’s decision of 11 June 2007 to accept the Appeals Committee’s recommendation, by which the bar was reduced to three years but not removed. He specifically asks the Tribunal to quash the Final Report of the Department of Institutional Integrity (INT), rescind the HRSVP’s disciplinary sanction, as amended by the Managing Director, remove all evidence of the INT investigation from his personnel records and compensate him for the professional and reputational harm he has suffered.

The Bank terminated the Applicant’s employment after its internal investigation determined that she had improperly claimed reimbursement on two occasions in the total amount of $333.08 with the intent to defraud the Bank. She challenges the termination of her employment before the Tribunal asserting that on these two occasions she made a mistake and had no intent to defraud.

The Applicant challenges the two misconduct decisions of the HRSVP including the Bank’s alleged failure to protect his confidential personnel information and due process rights. The Bank considers that the Tribunal has jurisdiction only over the Applicant’s challenge to the HRSVP’s decisions of 8 January and 17 April 2007. The Bank observes that the application raised two additional claims: (i) the Bank breached the confidentiality of his personnel information by disclosing such information to the Washington Post and the U.S. News & World Report; and (ii) INT failed to investigate these disclosures. In the Bank’s view, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over these two claims.

The Applicant contends that the termination decision was not warranted because he had already tendered his resignation to the Bank on 21 September 2005, effective the same day. He thus requests that the Tribunal quash the termination decision, allow his resignation to stand and set aside the denial of access to the Bank’s buildings and facilities.

Withdrawal.

Withdrawal.

The Applicant’s career with the Bank, which began just over a decade ago, has according to his own description involved a number of difficult episodes with his managers. His present application to the Tribunal arises in large part from his negative Overall Performance Evaluation for Fiscal Year 2005 (“FY05 OPE”), which coincided with his placement on a Monitored Work Program (“MWP”) and then a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). The Applicant challenges the FY05 OPE and his placement on the PIP, alleging that he has been the victim of retaliation, discrimination and various other forms of unfair treatment.

The Applicant’s employment with the Bank ended pursuant to a Mutually Agreed Separation (MAS) which contained a release provision expressed as follows: In accepting these terms and conditions, you fully and finally settle and release all claims you might otherwise have against the Bank Group arising out of circumstances occurring or decisions taken on or before the date of your acceptance. You understand that the settlement of these claims includes relinquishing of the right to appeal to the Appeals Committee, the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel and the World Bank Administrative Tribunal. The present judgment deals only with the issue of whether the Tribunal may hear the Applicant’s grievance notwithstanding this release, which the Applicant contends he signed under duress.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal decides as follows: (i) the application of 27 April 2007 is dismissed; (ii) with respect to the application of 14 May 2007, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Applicant’s claim arising from the Bank’s decision not to disclose to the Applicant the letters written to the Bank by his ex-wife’s attorney. The dates for the filing of pleadings on the merits will be determined by the President of the Tribunal and communicated to the parties.

The Tribunal concludes as follows: (i) it has jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims that: (a) the participation of the Applicant’s new supervisor “in a management meeting to consider her 2005 OPE although the OPE had restricted access” was a breach of the MOU, and (b) the MOU was “not implemented in good faith,” provided that the Applicant shows, at the merits stage, that the particular instances of this alleged breach were articulated before the Appeals Committee.

The Applicant now challenges his termination before the Tribunal. The legal grounds of termination and the definition of the discretionary element of the Bank’s decision in that respect are central to this case.

The Applicant challenges the Salary Review Increase (SRI) rating and low salary increase he received in July 2005 and the Bank’s decision to declare his position redundant on 6 July 2005.

The Applicant’s primary claim is that the Bank failed to protect his confidential personnel information. The Bank objects that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims. This judgment disposes of that objection.