The Applicant’s grievance arises out of the termination of his employment in 2001 for misconduct, namely receipt of funds from an IFC loan applicant during the processing of the loan. The explicit reason for the Applicant’s dismissal was that he had, in contravention of Staff Rule 3.01, accepted remuneration from a third party “in connection with service with the Bank Group.”

The Applicant challenges two decisions of the Claims Administrator dated 20 August 2001 and 26 September 2003, respectively, regarding an alleged illness suffered by the Applicant, and a related Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (Review Panel) decision dated 12 May 2005 (the hyperpigmentation claim). The Applicant also raises a claim for a separate illness (the dysentery claim).

The Applicant retired from the Bank on 1 January 2004 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age. At the time of her retirement, she was a Senior Social Development Specialist, Grade 24, in the Africa Technical Family Environment and Social Development (AFTES) Unit of the Bank. Before her retirement, the Applicant requested an extension of her employment for a further 20 months, which would have qualified her for an annual pension instead of a lump sum payment. The Bank declined her request, and she now challenges that decision.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to declare his employment redundant

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.

The Applicant worked in the Loan Department of the Bank for twenty years and retired in 1994 as a Senior Disbursement Officer. He claims that the investigation of a current staff member was conducted wrongfully and to his prejudice. The Bank objects that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over his claim. This judgment deals only with that objection.

The Applicant contests the Bank’s decision under Staff Rule 8.01 to “prohibit future hire [of the Applicant] by the Bank.” The Applicant fails, however, to meet the basic jurisdictional standards set forth by the Tribunal’s Statute. Article II, paragraph 2(i), of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that an application will be inadmissible if the applicant has not “exhausted all other remedies available within the Bank Group” prior to coming to the Tribunal, save in exceptional circumstances as decided by the Tribunal, or unless the applicant and the respondent have agreed to submit the application directly to the Tribunal.

The Applicant is primarily contesting the Bank’s decision not to select her for the position of Program Assistant in the Bank’s Energy and Water Department (EWD). The Applicant principally claims that she was discriminated against on the basis of race, age and gender and that the selection process was tainted by irregularities.

The Applicant worked in the Loan Department of the Bank for twenty years and retired in 1994 as a Senior Disbursement Officer. He claims that the investigation of a current staff member was conducted wrongfully and to his prejudice. The Bank objects that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over his claim. This judgment deals only with that objection.

The Applicant contends that the Bank acted improperly in requiring that he enter an MAS as a condition of avoiding his redundancy, and in maintaining the terms of the MAS both before and after his service in the ED’s office. He also contends that it was improper to limit his re-entry guarantee to only ten weeks of employment. Finally, he asserts that, although the time period for challenging his redundancy is long passed, he has been unfairly treated by members of the Human Resources Vice Presidency (HR) from the time of his redundancy and through his several years while working under the MAS and re-entry guarantee, so that he has been rendered unable to secure employment within the Bank for which he regards himself as well qualified. The Applicant seeks a rescission of the decision to terminate his employment, a good faith effort to place him in a suitable position, termination of his Bank service only upon compliance with the Staff Rules dealing with redundancy, appropriate compensation for unpaid salary, and moral damages.

The Applicant contests the decision to terminate his employment, following his completion of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). He claims that the decision was unfair and abusive, and in violation of the relevant Staff Rules.

The Applicant is a Finance Analyst, Grade GE, in the Loan Department (“LOA”) of the Bank. She joined LOA in 1982 and has been a Finance Analyst there since 1990. On October 21, 2003, she was placed on administrative leave with pay pending the outcome of an investigation by the Bank’s Department of Institutional Integrity (“INT”). INT’s Final Report, dated July 9, 2004, vindicated the Applicant with respect to the most serious allegations, and concluded that an allegation of excess of authority, although apparently founded, was immaterial in effect and at any rate mitigated by the Applicant’s good work. No sanctions were ultimately imposed on the Applicant, but she now seeks redress on the sole ground that the decision to place her on administrative leave was wrongful.

The Tribunal decides that the application is inadmissible, except with respect to the following claims: (a) Wrongful termination of the Applicant’s Fixed-Term contract by arbitrary denial of contract renewal; (b) The unfairness of his 2003 OPE; and (c) Discrimination and arbitrariness in the rejection of his application for an alternative position in the Bank.

The Applicant’s complaint in this case concerns the Bank’s alleged failure to carry out the Applicant’s performance evaluation for 2001-02 fairly and in a timely manner, and the salary increase (SRI) given for the same period. The Applicant also complains about a continuing mismanagement of his career, the breach of a re-entry guarantee, and a failure to take appropriate action in respect of a claim of administrative harassment and a hostile work environment.

The Applicant contests the following decisions: (1) the refusal to place under seal her former manager’s charges of misconduct relating to a statement of travel expenses from a mission in January/February 2000; (2) the initiation of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in November 2000 and her previous, related performance evaluations; (3) the decision to extend the PIP in November 2001; and (4) a January 16, 2002 memorandum noting that the PIP had ended and warning against any future slippage from the performance standard required.

Application summarily dismissed. The Applicant requests review of the Bank’s decision not to confirm his Open-Ended appointment, on the basis that it “constitutes an abuse of discretion in that it was arbitrary.” The Applicant formerly resorted to the Appeals Committee, whose Report, dated December 21, 2004, was mailed on December 23, 2004 to the Applicant along with a letter from the Acting Vice President of Human Resources accepting the Committee’s recommendations.
 

Withdrawal.

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant for past pension credit and related compensation. The Applicant argues that the Bank’s decision to limit the granting of past pension credit to those Non-Regular Staff (NRS) in service on January 1, 2002 is arbitrary. She also claims compensation for misclassification during the period of her employment with the Bank.

The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over the following claims of the Applicant: (a) Wrongful termination of his Fixed-Term contract by arbitrary denial of contract renewal; (b) Unfairness of his 2003 OPE; and (c) Discrimination and arbitrariness in the rejection of his application for an alternative position in the Bank.

The Tribunal upheld the jurisdictional objections of the Respondent with respect to the following claims of the Applicant: (d) Arbitrariness in compelling him to return to Washington, DC in the middle of the 2002-03 French school year, which imposed unnecessary hardship upon him and his family; and (e) Denial of access to the World Bank Group’s premises.

The Applicant’s complaint in this case concerns the Bank’s alleged failure to carry out the Applicant’s performance evaluation for 2001-02 fairly and in a timely manner, and the salary increase (SRI) given for the same period. The Applicant also complains about a continuing mismanagement of his career, the breach of a re-entry guarantee, and a failure to take appropriate action in respect of a claim of administrative harassment and a hostile work environment.