The Applicant makes the following primary contentions: (i) the Bank wrongfully failed to notify him in writing about the no-hire flag; (ii) the Bank wrongfully disciplined him on the basis of a secret report, following a secret investigation; and (iii) he has never posed a legitimate security concern to Bank staff.

This case concerns the termination of the Applicant’s employment with the Bank on 2 August 2006, following an investigation of alleged sexual harassment, retaliation and abuse of authority, as well as charges of conflict of interest. He complains that

Respondent has abused its powers in the investigation of allegations of misconduct made against Applicant through denial of his due process rights and the failure to accord Applicant fair treatment under the Principles of Staff Employment and The Staff Rules.

Respondent has abused its discretion in the wrongful decision to terminate Applicant’s employment on the basis of erroneous findings of fact in the findings and conclusions of the Final Report of investigation by INT.

Respondent has abused its discretion in the wrongful decision to terminate Applicant’s employment despite the clear violations of Applicant’s rights to due and fair process and the clear misconduct of staff involved in the investigation who willfully sought to defame Applicant.

Respondent has abused its powers in the arbitrary and capricious denial of monies owed to Applicant and fraudulent claims of monies owed by Applicant to the Respondent.

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

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision of 14 June 2004 to declare his position redundant and the subsequent termination of his employment as of 31 December 2004.

The Applicant was investigated for the alleged sexual harassment of a female colleague. The Tribunal orders that: (i) the Respondent shall pay the Applicant compensation in the amount equivalent to six months’ salary foregone, as a result of the premature and wrongful termination of his contract; (ii) the Respondent shall pay the Applicant further compensation in the amount equivalent to three months’ salary, for damages to his personal and professional life; (iii) the Respondent shall pay the Applicant another amount, equivalent to three months’ salary, on account of the wrongful use of the INT Report by the HRSVP; (iv) all records relating to the allegations of sexual misconduct shall be removed from the Applicant’s personnel file, the order of ineligibility for rehiring by the World Bank Group rescinded, and this judgment included in his file.

The Applicant claims that the Bank acted arbitrarily and unfairly when it denied him past pension credit for his service prior to 1 January 1983. The Bank objects that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims. This judgment disposes of that objection.

The Applicant challenges the denial of a workers’ compensation claim and the subsequent rejection of a request for reconsideration, as well as a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Review Panel (the “Review Panel”) of 11 May 2006 affirming the denial.

On 22 March 2004, the Bank declared the Applicant’s position, i.e., Senior Financial Officer, Grade GG, Corporate Finance Department of Strategy, Finance and Risk Management (SFRCF), redundant. The present application principally challenges that redundancy decision.

The Applicant claims administrative negligence and incompetence on the part of both the Internal Audit Department (IAD) and the Department of Institutional Integrity (INT) of the Bank, arising out of a travel management audit and a subsequent investigation into alleged misconduct by the Applicant.

The Applicant claims that the Bank violated Principles 2.1 and 9.1 of the Principles of Staff Employment by: (i) refusing to reimburse her for legal fees incurred in the course of an investigation by the Department of Institutional Integrity (INT) which exonerated her; and (ii) failing to compensate her adequately for damage to her personal and professional reputation as a result of being falsely accused and investigated.

The Applicant is challenging his managers’ decision not to increase his 2004 and 2005 salaries, as well as the earlier salary reviews on which that decision was based. Among other things, the Applicant specifically contends that “a fair salary review requires at the very least a review of past SRIs [Salary Review Increases] and ... the underlying OPEs [Overall Performance Evaluations] ... to see if they reveal a systemic bias.” The Bank has raised a jurisdictional objection to the Applicant’s challenge of his past SRI ratings and OPEs.

The Applicant claims that the Bank acted arbitrarily and unfairly when it denied him past pension credit for his service prior to 1 January 1983. The Bank objects that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims. This judgment disposes of that objection.

The Applicant challenges a decision of the Pension Benefits Administration Committee (PBAC) rendered on 23 February 2004. The PBAC decided to make payment of pension benefits to the Intervenor rather than to the Applicant, who is a business associate of a child of the Intervenor by an earlier marriage, and who has served for several years as the guardian of the Intervenor’s estate pursuant to a court order in the state of Illinois, USA. The central question to be decided is whether the PBAC abused its discretion in declining to give “full faith and credit” to the Illinois guardianship order and in deciding instead to pay the disputed pension benefits to the Intervenor.

The Applicant challenges the decision of the Bank to declare his position redundant and to terminate his employment.

This case concerns an allegation that administrative negligence and incompetence resulted in moral damage suffered by the Applicant in consequence of a travel management audit and a subsequent investigation into alleged misconduct. The investigation was ultimately discontinued

The Applicant claims that the Bank violated Principles 2.1 and 9.1 of the Principles of Staff Employment by: (i) refusing to reimburse her for the legal fees that she incurred in the course of an INT investigation which exonerated her; and (ii) failing to compensate her adequately for damage to her personal and professional reputation as a result of being falsely accused and investigated by INT. The Bank objects that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims. The present judgment deals with the jurisdictional objection only. The antecedents of the grievance are recounted in G, Decision No. 340 [2005].

The Applicant is challenging his managers’ decision not to increase his 2004 and 2005 salaries, as well as the earlier salary reviews on which that decision was based. Among other things, the Applicant specifically contends that “a fair salary review requires at the very least a review of past SRIs [Salary Review Increases] and ... the underlying OPEs [Overall Performance Evaluations] ... to see if they reveal a systemic bias.” The Bank has raised a jurisdictional objection to the Applicant’s challenge of his past SRI ratings and OPEs

The Applicant contests a decision by the Vice President of Human Resources Services (HRSVP) to withhold payment of the Applicant’s accumulated annual leave pending completion of an investigation by the Department of Institutional Integrity (INT), and to place those funds in an interest-bearing escrow account. The Applicant seeks to recover such funds.

The Applicant claims that Ms. Sierra’s decisions were arbitrary on four counts: (i) the INT investigation was unwarranted; (ii) the investigation was flawed; (iii) the finding of misconduct was unfounded; and (iv) the disciplinary measures imposed were disproportionate.

The Tribunal decides that it is without jurisdiction to address on the merits the Applicant’s claims with respect to the denial of a mobility premium and of a salary increase in the years 2003 and thereafter. The Tribunal does, however, have jurisdiction to address on the merits the Applicant’s claim with respect to his first interim OPE, as well as his claim with respect to the Bank’s decision not to confirm his appointment.