Withdrawal

The Applicant considers that the Bank has failed to provide the “level of care to be exercised … towards its staff members so as to preserve their mental health and thus their rights and dignity as human beings.” He seeks the rescission of a decision denying his request for a review of the conduct of a psychiatrist employed by the Bank; substantial monetary compensation; and a “full independent review, assisted by an outside expert, of practices in the Respondent’s health services department.”

The issue for decision is whether the application must be dismissed because of a failure by the Applicant to exhaust “all other remedies available within the Bank Group,” as required by Article II, paragraph 2(i), of the Statute of the Tribunal.

This is an application by the Applicant to the Tribunal contesting the decisions of the Respondent to place him on a performance improvement plan (PIP), to rate his performance as unsatisfactory in the 1999 overall performance evaluation (OPE) and to terminate his employment.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision of September 29, 1998 declaring her position redundant under Staff Rule 7.01, paragraphs 8.02(c) and 8.03. She maintains that the decision was arbitrary, improperly motivated and in violation of Staff Rule 7.01, as well as the Principles of Staff Employment. She alleges that she was targeted for redundancy and that the rationale given for the decision was pretextual. The Applicant also accuses the Bank management of interfering manipulatively and willfully in her internal job search.
 

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant that the Bank abused its discretion in not extending her contract or regularizing her position. Issues of discrimination, particularly on medical grounds, and unfair evaluation, as well as questions of access to the Bank’s buildings, have also been brought to the Tribunal in the context of this application.

The Applicant claims that the decision to terminate her employment based on a finding of misconduct was erroneous and that there was abuse of process in the conduct of the investigation. She further contests the rejection by the Vice President, Human Resources (HRSVP), of the Appeals Committee’s recommendations to reinstate her and to give her back pay and all benefits from the date of her termination. She seeks rescission of the notice of termination, compensation for lost pay and costs of resettlement, damages in the amount of three years’ net salary and publication in the Niger press of a retraction of a notice of June 19, 1999 of her termination.

The Applicant challenges a decision of February 10, 1995, by which she was given a 5% salary increase, in response to her claim that her salary at that time was improperly low as a result of gender discrimination. She claims that the Bank’s response to her request for an increase was arbitrary. She claims equitable compensation covering the whole period of her employment. She also claims costs.

The Applicant claims that the decision to terminate his employment because, inter alia, he was found to have sexually harassed Ms. X, to have retaliated against her and to have violated her privacy, was unfair and an abuse of discretion. He seeks withdrawal of the charges against him, a formal written apology, action against those who initiated the proceedings against him, and monetary compensation for wrongful termination and for mental and psychological anguish suffered by him.

The Applicant filed her application with the Tribunal claiming that the disciplinary procedures set out in Staff Rule 8.01 were not followed and that, as a result, she suffered losses for which she claims compensation. In particular, she complains about the placing of flags in her personnel file by the Office of Professional Ethics (OPE) and requests their removal.

This case involves the interpretation and application of Staff Rule 3.01, paragraph 5.02, in particular whether a decision by the Respondent, following an investigation in 1999 by the Office of Professional Ethics (OPE), that the Applicant engaged in misconduct was valid or tainted by both substantive and procedural flaws. 

This case concerns the Applicant’s claims that the Bank: (i) abused its discretion in deciding to terminate her employment for redundancy under Staff Rule 7.01, paragraphs 8.02(d) and 8.03; (ii) failed to assist her in finding employment subsequent to the decision of redundancy; and (iii) improperly reviewed her request for administrative review.

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant alleging unfair denial of participation in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and of related benefits for the whole period of the Applicant’s service with the Bank Group in his capacity as a Long-Term Consultant. This claim also involves a claim of misclassification of position and the resulting different payment structure that applies to non-regular staff (NRS) as compared to regular staff.

In her letter of resignation, the Applicant stated that she had intended to serve a full career to age 62, but was leaving five years earlier due to the Bank’s failure to take timely action to prevent “escalating and overt harassment in the work place which was then compounded by abuses of authority, and level and gender bias."

The Applicant seeks review and reversal of a decision made by the Pension Benefits Administration Committee (PBAC) to deny her a disability pension. The Applicant joined the Bank in April 1985 as a Staff Nurse with the Medical Department, and she remained in that position until the ending of her employment in 1998. In 1986, she began treatment with a rheumatologist, Dr. Rothenberg, and in the early 1990s she began to experience more diffuse pain and body aches, which led to difficulty in sleeping, daytime fatigue, a rapid heart rate and other ailments.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to terminate his employment as a Long-Term Consultant on March 1, 1999 for allegedly engaging in outside employment in contravention of Staff Rule 3.01. The Respondent has raised an objection to jurisdiction, arguing that the Applicant failed to exhaust all internal remedies available within the Bank Group in a timely manner, thereby rendering his Application inadmissible under Article II, paragraph 2(i), of the Tribunal’s Statute. As is set out more fully below, the Tribunal concludes that the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction have not been satisfied.

The present Application challenges a determination by the Appeals Committee that it was without jurisdiction to entertain a claim by [the Applicant] that he had suffered unlawful discrimination in the Africa Technical Families, Human Development 3 Division (AFTH3), and that the handling of a complaint he lodged jointly with three other staff members was wrongful. The basis for the Appeals Committee’s decision was that the Appeal was untimely.  

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant about the unfair denial of participation in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and related benefits for the whole period of her service with the Bank as a Long-Term Temporary and as a Long-Term Consultant. This claim also raises questions of misclassification.

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant about the unfair denial of participation in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and related benefits for the whole period of his service with the Bank as a Long-Term Temporary. The claim also raises questions of misclassification.

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant about the unfair denial of participation in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and related benefits for the whole period of her service with the Bank as a Long-Term Consultant. The claim also raises questions of misclassification.