The Applicant submits that after he complained about alleged misrepresentations by his Division Chief in reports to higher management, the Bank retaliated against him by giving him poor evaluations, threatening him with termination, exposing him to a hostile work environment and denying him promotion. The Applicant contests his non-promotion and asks that his unfavorable Overall Performance Evaluations (OPEs) be removed from his file, that he be promoted to Grade G retroactive to July 2000, and that he be awarded the educational costs of pursuing a Master’s degree, together with compensation and costs.

This application involves a complaint following the judgment of the Tribunal in C, Decision No. 272 [2002]. It concerns the Bank’s denial of the Applicant’s requests to seal all records pertaining to its investigation of him for misconduct and to remove alleged “no-hire” or similar flags included in his personnel file.

The Applicant contests the denial of her workers’ compensation claim, raises a claim for “permanent partial disability” compensation, and claims in addition reimbursement of medical expenses, compensation for violations of due process, and costs.

The Applicant now challenges the Respondent’s decision to deny him reimbursement of 40 days of annual leave as an abuse of managerial discretion.The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has been beneficially and generously assisted by the Respondent, particularly given the fact that he was not entitled to job-search assistance in the first place. As confirmed in B, Decision No. 247 [2001], para. 26, “the Bank’s obligation to provide [job-search] assistance relates not to the expiration of fixed-term contracts but to cases of termination of service on account of redundancy. (McKinney, Decision No. 187 [1998], para. 17.)” While the Bank was not under an obligation to provide assistance upon the valid expiration of the Applicant’s contract, generous assistance was provided nonetheless. For the above reasons, the Tribunal decides to dismiss the application.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to deny pension credit for her past service as a Non-Regular Staff (NRS) because of a break in service between a series of appointments as both Long-Term and ShortTerm Consultant. The Applicant alleges gender discrimination; she says that the break was the consequence of decisions made at a time when she was due to deliver her first child.

This is the second application brought by the Applicant against the Bank, the first having been decided in the Tribunal’s judgment in Harou, Decision No. 273 [2002]. The Tribunal must now consider the Applicant’s request for reconsideration of that judgment, and separately whether jurisdiction exists to hear what the Applicant refers to as additional claims which the Applicant apparently alleges are being presented for the first time. For the above reasons, the Tribunal decides to dismiss the application.

The Applicant was given a termination grant on March 27, 2001. The grant was calculated by reference to the Applicant’s years of service from August 1, 1971.The Applicant filed an appeal on June 11, 2002. The Bank objected, inter alia, that the complaint was untimely, for failure to pursue the matter within 90 days of his receipt of the grant. The Appeals Committee dismissed the case on this ground on March 27, 2003. For the above reasons, the Tribunal decides that the application is inadmissible.

This case concerns a decision of the Bank to deny the Applicant pension credit for past service as a NonRegular Staff (NRS) because of a break in service which intervened between two periods which he spent as a Long-Term Consultant.

The Applicant challenges the decision to terminate his employment for misconduct and to withdraw accrued leave benefits which were due to him.

The Applicant has raised a number of claims of denial of due process in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings against him. An understanding of those claims requires a brief summary of the investigation process in connection with charges of misconduct against a staff member of the World Bank, including the IFC. This summary is distilled from a number of Bank documents, particularly Staff Rule 8.01, Section 5, and a publication of INT titled Standards and Procedures for Inquiries and Investigations (April 19, 2001). As the latter document states, and as the Tribunal has held, the Bank conducts administrative investigations which are not adjudicatory in nature. Nevertheless, certain minimum guarantees must be observed, including that the accused staff member is informed of the allegation against him, given a fair opportunity to defend himself, to rebut accusations and to give his version of the pertinent events as to facts, arguments and conclusions. For the above reasons, the Tribunal decides that: (i) the decision to terminate the Applicant’s employment is set aside; (ii) the Respondent shall forthwith pay compensation to the Applicant in the amount of one year’s net salary; (iii) the Respondent shall offer the Applicant and negotiate with him in good faith a mutually agreed separation package (MAS) pursuant to the terms of paragraph 72 supra and, failing any timely agreement between the parties, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant an additional compensation in the amount of three years’ net salary; (iv) the Respondent shall forthwith remove from the Applicant’s personnel file the final Report of the INT investigators and the decisions of the VPHR and Managing Director, and shall substitute a copy of this judgment; and (v) all other pleas are dismissed.

This case involves a complaint of the Applicant in respect of the decisions of the Respondent: (i) to declare his position redundant on June 22, 2000 in terms of Staff Rule 7.01, on the basis of the abolition of his position; and (ii) to award him on August 9, 2000 a low merit award which led to his being awarded a 2% increase in salary. The Applicant requests rescission of the decision to declare his position redundant, compensation in the amount of three years’ net salary, and costs.

The Applicant contends that the declaration of redundancy of her position lacked a clear and legitimate business rationale, that the process followed in implementing the redundancy decision was mechanistic and flawed by subjective judgment, and that she was treated unfairly in not being offered alternative employment.

This case involves a complaint of the Applicant in respect of the decision of the Respondent excluding a period of his service from the past pension benefit accruing to Non-Regular Staff (NRS) pursuant to the policy approved by the Executive Directors on September 17, 2002 and the corresponding Schedule F added to the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) on December 12, 2002.

The Applicant’s employment as the Acting IFC Resident Representative in Accra, Ghana, was terminated on February 14, 2001 for misconduct. Finally, having had access to a substantial number of documents produced for its in camera review by the Respondent as described in paragraph 1 above, the Tribunal confirms that it has found no evidence which contradicts the findings of the investigator, suggests any prejudice against the Applicant or favoritism toward his accusers, or indicates that relevant information was withheld from him. The Applicant has expressed particular concern about the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant’s employment records. In this respect, the Tribunal is satisfied that such aspects of the Applicant’s terms of employment at the relevant times as are pertinent to this application have been fully disclosed.For the above reasons, the Tribunal decides to dismiss the application.

The Applicant challenges the Respondent’s decision not to extend his Short-Term Consultancy contract with the IFC. He asserts that his performance was of high quality, and that the Respondent had given him assurances that, under such circumstances, his contract would be extended beyond its explicit termination date of June 2, 2001. He seeks reinstatement to his previous position or a comparable one, compensation for his time lost from work with the IFC, four years of salary in the event the Respondent chooses not to reinstate him, and costs. The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that no assurances were given to extend his ShortTerm contract, that on the contrary the Applicant was explicitly told that his contract would end on June 2, 2001 as expressly provided therein, and that his contract of employment and terms of appointment have in no way been violated.

Respondent contends that the application is inadmissible for failure to exhaust internal remedies, in view of the Applicant’s untimely resort to the Appeals Committee nearly three years after her NRS appointment was converted in April 1999 from Consultant to Open-Ended. Given the clear lapsing of the Applicant’s claim because of her failure to pursue internal remedies by the end of July 1999, the Tribunal is of the view that in the circumstances of this case the Respondent has not lost its jurisdictional defense by virtue of beneficent action taken ex gratia by the Bank more than three years later. The Tribunal thus cannot uphold the Applicant’s contention.

This case deals with the Applicant’s claims that the decision to declare his employment redundant was wrongful and pretextual, that the Respondent failed to follow due process in implementing the redundancy decision, and that the Respondent followed deceptive practices in converting the Applicant’s Mutually Agreed Separation (MAS) into a forced one.

To rule on the objection, the Tribunal needs to address the following two questions in this judgment: (a) whether the Applicant brought her application to the Tribunal in a timely fashion; and (b) if she did not, whether there existed exceptional circumstances that would justify discretionary jurisdiction in this case. She did not do this. The Tribunal finds that no exceptional circumstances exist to justify the admissibility of this application. For the above reasons, the Tribunal decides that the application is inadmissible.

The Applicant states that at the time he signed his MAS he believed that he would be allowed to work for the Bank on Short-Term Consultant appointments for up to 190 days per year, as a regular retiree. Soon thereafter, however, the Applicant was informed that, under the terms of his MAS, the Bank might want to limit to 120 the number of days he would be allowed to consult per year. In sum, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner with regard to his claim, and that no exceptional circumstances exist to justify the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant about the Bank’s decision to abolish his position and to declare his employment redundant under Staff Rule 7.01, paragraph 8.02(b). In the Applicant’s view, this decision was not based on the interests of efficient administration, but rather was taken with the intention of terminating him because, among other reasons, of racial discrimination based on his sub-Saharan origin.