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

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant that he had been unfairly denied participation in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and related benefits for the whole period of his service with the Bank as a Long-Term Consultant

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant in respect of adverse discrimination on the part of the Bank, based on age and nationality, that allegedly resulted in depriving him of a regular staff position, in the wrongful conversion of his Long-Term Consultant appointment into a Short-Term one and in the non-extension of the latter contract. As a consequence of the above, the Applicant also claims pension benefits for the entire period of his work with the Bank and compensation for income losses.

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant that the Bank’s failure to revise the date of her termination of employment to make her eligible for the benefits of the Bank’s Retiree Medical Insurance Plan (MIP) amounted to a breach of her terms of appointment, and a failure to treat her fairly in the same manner the Bank treated other staff members whose positions were declared redundant.

The Applicant attempts to found jurisdiction over his past pension benefit claims on the individual efforts of an applicant in an earlier Tribunal judgment, Prescott, Decision No. 253 [2001], to obtain redress for his own past pension benefit claims.

This is an application contesting the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (“the Review Panel”) denying, on the ground of untimely submission, the Applicant’s claim for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Program provided for under Staff Rule 6.11, paragraph 3.01.

The Applicant challenges a decision by the Bank to declare his position redundant, which in the Applicant's view was arbitrary and improperly motivated.

The Applicant, who was initially employed by the World Bank in October 1974, and was terminated on August 1, 1996 on account of redundancy, contests several decisions by the Respondent: (a) the redundancy decision, “as being pretextual and constituting wrongful termination of employment”; (b) the 1996 merit award for the 1995 performance year “as being an abuse of managerial discretion”; (c) the Respondent’s failure to assist her in obtaining an alternative position; and (d) the “failure of Respondent to protect her staff rights by conducting an abusive Ethics investigation.” The Respondent’s principal contentions are that its actions were all properly taken and based on legitimate business reasons, that they were altogether consistent with the applicable Staff Rules and Principles of Staff Employment, and that they were neither an abuse of discretion nor a product of ill-will.

Application ummarily dismissed.

This application raises issues related to the Bank’s decision not to confirm the Applicant’s probationary appointment. It is the Applicant’s position that the non-confirmation decision was unjustified and not taken in accordance with due process.

The Applicant’s claim concerns the Bank’s decision refusing his request to opt for an unreduced Rule of 50 pension even though he was still a staff member placed on special leave when the amended Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) entered into force. The Applicant argues that this decision is both discriminatory and entails a violation of the Staff Rules and the SRP.

The Applicant’s claim concerns the Bank’s decision refusing his request to opt for an unreduced Rule of 50 pension even though he was still a staff member placed on special leave when the amended Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) entered into force. The Applicant argues that this decision is both discriminatory and entails a violation of the Staff Rules and the SRP.

The Applicant’s claim concerns the Bank’s decision refusing her request to opt for an unreduced Rule of 50 pension even though she was still a staff member placed on special leave when the amended Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) entered into force. The Applicant argues that this decision is both discriminatory and entails a violation of the Staff Rules and the SRP.

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant to the effect that the rule introduced in the Staff Retirement Plan (“SRP”) for early retirement with an unreduced pension (the “Rule of 50”) violates the rights of staff and entails a form of age discrimination with respect to staff members made redundant under the age of 50.

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant to the effect that the rule introduced in the Staff Retirement Plan (“SRP”) for early retirement with an unreduced pension (the “Rule of 50”) violates the rights of staff and entails a form of age discrimination with respect to staff members made redundant under the age of 50.

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant to the effect that the rule introduced in the Staff Retirement Plan (“SRP”) for early retirement with an unreduced pension (the “Rule of 50”) violates the rights of staff and entails a form of age discrimination with respect to staff members made redundant under the age of 50.

The Applicant appeals to the Tribunal against a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Review Panel, which denied her claim for medical reimbursement and disability benefits on account of her failure to submit to a medical examination as directed by the Claims Administrator. Disposition of this appeal requires the application of a number of the Tribunal’s judgments, particularly those dealing with workers’ compensation, and the provisions of Staff Rule 6.11 that set forth the terms of that program.

The Applicant claims non-observance of his contract of employment in several respects, including arbitrary termination of his terms of reference, non-renewal of his contract contrary to assurances, denial of fair evaluation of his performance, and other unfair, discriminatory and unethical treatment in violation of the Principles of Staff Employment.

 Ghulam Mustafa had submitted an earlier application to the Tribunal which resulted in a judgment rendered on May 14, 1999 (Decision No. 207 [1999]) where he was awarded compensation in the amount of three months’ net salary and various costs. His widow, Ms. Yasmin, is requesting the Tribunal to revise its judgment. Among her pleas, she asks the Tribunal to “increase compensation to at least three years net salary and provide a job to any one of [her] two elder sons.” She states that if her request is not “responded [to] properly,” she “will go to American courts for damages and various human rights organization[s].” Application summarily dismissed.

This case concerns a complaint by the Applicant regarding a decision of the Bank refusing his request to exercise the option for early retirement under the Rule of 50. The Applicant argues that he and other staff members having terminated employment with the Bank before April 15, 1998 – the date from which the benefit is available under the condition of meeting certain defined criteria – have been discriminated against. The Applicant further argues that this date is arbitrary, that the amendments introduced to the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) lack adequate transitional provisions and that a number of elements of the amended SRP should be considered either illicit or ill conceived.