This case concerns the Applicant’s complaints that: (i) the expiration of his Consultancy contract was wrongful; (ii) the Appeals Committee’s denial of jurisdiction in his case was based on an irregular process; and (iii) the evaluation of his performance was an abuse of discretion.

 The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Respondent, having agreed to accept all of the recommendations of the Appeals Committee, failed to implement them and thereby violated the Applicant’s conditions of employment.

The Applicant contests the Bank’s decision to declare his position redundant, on the grounds that it was unfair and failed to follow proper procedures, that it was discriminatory, and that it amounted to retaliation. He claims three years’ net salary, rescission of the redundancy and costs.

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant about the Respondent having allegedly transmitted information to certain public authorities in violation of Staff Rule 2.01, para. 5.01, and related questions of due process resulting from this decision.

The written materials produced in support of the application are exceptionally voluminous. The dispute is also unusual in terms of the hierarchical level at which it has arisen; the Applicant was a Vice President and reported directly to a Managing Director. Moreover, his allegations are grave: in his own summary phrase, they constitute “a knowing violation of the Bank’s Rules by the Bank’s Senior Management.” He goes so far as to state that Bank officials in their actions in relation to him exhibited a degree of dereliction of duty which in some countries would expose them to criminal sanctions. At any rate, the object of the application is quite precise; it challenges decisions taken on June 12, 2001, to the effect that the Applicant was: - terminated as Financial Sector Vice President; - reassigned as Special Advisor to the Bank’s Chief Financial Officer; and - not confirmed as Regular staff. The Applicant also complains that he was denied just compensation from 1999 to 2001, and that he was given “disparate treatment.”

The Applicant was an Information Technology Specialist with the Bank. He began work with the Bank in March 1994 as a Long-Term Consultant in the Finance and Private Sector Development Department. His work was to provide technical support for end-users of the Bank’s information technology (IT) systems. The Applicant had good assessments. In his review up to December 1997, dated April 1998, he was found to be fully effective and rated at either the highest or second highest level.

Withdrawal.

In this case, the Applicant did not submit her application with the Tribunal within the 120-day limit required by the Tribunal’s Statute. The Applicant has, moreover, not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify her failure to file her application with the Tribunal in a timely manner. The application is on this basis clearly irreceivable.
 

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant about not being admitted to participate in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) prior to the Human Resources Policy Reform of 1998, his non-regularization following a proposal to the Environment Sector Board, his ultimate separation from the Bank’s service, and the process governing the appointment of his replacement. Questions relating to due process and procedural matters are also raised in this application.

The Applicant considers that he was misclassified as Non-Regular Staff for 4 years and 2 months (from October 1989 until December 1993) and therefore was wrongly deprived of benefits under the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP). He also seeks pension benefits “affected due to my forced retirement” on October 31, 2000, and his subsequent retention as a Consultant not entitled to participation in the SRP. Finally, the Applicant seeks service credit under Article 3A of the SRP for his employment as a Consultant before December 1993.

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant about the Respondent having allegedly transmitted information to certain public authorities in violation of Staff Rule 2.01, para. 5.01, and related questions of due process resulting from this decision.

The Applicant challenges the manner of her reinstatement by the Bank, as ordered by this Tribunal in Decision No. 248 [2001] in Yoon (No. 2).  The Bank has argued that the Applicant was not entitled to seize the Tribunal before exhausting internal remedies pursuant to Article II(2) of its Statute.

The Applicant’s principal claim is that the decision to declare her position redundant was an abuse of discretion. She seeks rescission of that decision and reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation.

The Applicant claims that the right to restore his prior service, which existed at the time of his withdrawal, is a fundamental and essential right which the Bank did not have the right to change unilaterally. The Applicant further argues that even if the right to restore past service were “nonessential,” the Bank’s change to the SRP was an abuse of discretion with the impermissibly retroactive effect of depriving him of the right to repurchase credit for past service under the Gross Plan. The Applicant goes further by claiming that the Bank unjustifiably delayed his conversion from Consultant to a Fixed-Term appointment, causing him to fall under the post-Reform SRP and thereby lose his right to restore his previous service. The Applicant also claims that the Pension Administration failed to advise him at the time of his withdrawal that the Bank was seriously considering amendment of the SRP. The Applicant alleges that, as a result, he was retroactively denied compensation for services previously performed. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner, so that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of his claim for a later and enhanced Termination Grant, under Article II, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
The Applicant was nearly two years late in presenting this claim to the PBAC. It must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on account of failure to exhaust internal remedies. The PBAC was as late in providing its reasons to the Applicant as it was to Mr. Biswas, so that the Applicant and his attorney were comparably inconvenienced and uninformed at the time they filed the application in this case. The Tribunal therefore awards costs to the Applicant in the amount of some of his attorney’s fees.

The Applicant was some three years late in presenting this claim to the PBAC. It must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on account of failure to exhaust internal remedies.The PBAC was as late in providing its reasons to the Applicant as it was to Mr. Biswas, so that the Applicant and his attorney were comparably inconvenienced and uninformed at the time they filed the application in this case. The Tribunal therefore awards costs to the Applicant in the amount of some of his attorney’s fees.
 

The Respondent disputes the Applicant’s invocation and interpretation of the SRP, and also contends that Country Office staff members were ineligible for SRP coverage during the period 1973-86 (and that the Applicant was so informed), that the Termination Grant was in fact intended to operate in Country Offices in lieu of pension rights, and that the Applicant should not be permitted to devise arguments for Plan coverage that were not presented by him before the PBAC. The Respondent also contends, as did the Plan Benefits Administrator before the PBAC, that the Applicant’s claim was filed well outside of the three-year limitations period, so that here too the application must be dismissed by the Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction.

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant regarding the redundancy of his position and the admissibility of several other claims that the Applicant makes regarding his allegedly improper initial classification, the reclassification of his position, and the evaluation of his performance throughout his career at the Bank.

In this case, the Applicant contests the Bank’s decision to declare his position redundant and its failure to provide appropriate assistance to him in obtaining another suitable position in the Bank.

The Applicant seeks past pension credit for her service as a Non-Regular Staff (NRS). The application appears to have been based on information made available by the World Bank Staff Association, which states that former NRS, “whether they have already filed with the Appeals Committee or not, can file an appeal with the Administrative Tribunal.”