The Applicant challenges (i) the decision to deny him access to Bank premises without first conducting a “business needs assessment”; (ii) the release of “Strictly Confidential HR [Human Resources] information to junior and mid-level staff within the Bank, and subsequently to [the Applicant’s] then-employer”; and (iii) the due process violations resulting from the investigation into the disclosure of his “Strictly Confidential HR information.”

The Applicant is challenging the 17 December 2019 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (ARP) denying his claim for workers’ compensation. The Bank filed preliminary objections to the Application. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant requests “review of the pleas and evidence previously submitted to the Vice President [of Human Resources (HRVP)] through the INT [Integrity Vice Presidency]” and challenges the imposition of disciplinary sanctions by which she would (i) be ineligible for “future Bank Group employment as a staff member, contractor, or employee of a contractor;” (ii) have hiring and access restrictions implemented; and (iii) have a written censure placed in her personnel file.

The Applicant is challenging (i) the non-renewal of her contract which ended on 31 December 2017; (ii) the breach of promise of continuing employment which was to begin on 1 January 2018; and (iii) the breach of the Mediation Agreement.

The Applicant is challenging the Bank’s decision not to confirm her appointment, on the basis that the non-confirmation decision was both substantively and procedurally flawed.

The Applicant is challenging (i) the Bank’s failure to provide her with medical support or information; (ii) the Bank’s failure to provide the Applicant with a reasonable work accommodation to a non-tropical area; (iii) the non-confirmation of the Applicant’s employment and the extension of her probationary period; (iv) the Bank’s failure to implement its agreement to pay the Applicant in U.S. dollars (USD) in a timely manner; (v) the Bank’s failure to make certain payments to the Applicant, including her salary, her Scarce Skills Premium (SSP), the Special Compensation Measure (SCM), benefits, and her resettlement costs at the time of the termination of her appointment; (vi) mismanagement of the Applicant’s career; (vii) “[u]nfair and discriminatory treatment, resulting in constructive discharge”; and (viii) the denial of the Applicant’s workers’ compensation benefits. 

The Applicant challenges her Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Annual Review, her performance rating, and the restriction placed on her access to World Bank Group premises. On 30 September 2019, the Bank submitted a preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Applicant’s access restriction claim. According to the Bank, the Applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner. 

The Applicant challenges (i) his Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Annual Review; (ii) his FY2017 performance rating of 2; (iii) the decision not to shortlist him for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929; (iv) the decision not to select him for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929; and (v) the refusal to provide feedback on the reasons why he was not shortlisted for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929.

The Applicant challenges (i) “the improper termination of her contract as a retaliatory measure”; (ii) the denial of her due process rights as a result of not being provided “the real reasons” for her termination; (iii) the decision “not to renew her contract for a 3-5 year term”; and (iv) “abuse of power and authority […] by failing to address the Applicant’s many complaints of ongoing harassment […] and failing to protect her from such behaviors.”

The Applicant challenges (i) the non-extension of his Institutional Staff Resources Program (ISRP) assignment; (ii) the decision not to shortlist him for the Senior Operations Officer position in the Education Global Practice, Middle East and North Africa Region (GED05); and (iii) the insufficient notice of termination.

The Applicant challenges the decision to make his position redundant.

The Applicant challenges (i) the decision not to promote him to level GF-1; and (ii) the decision to make his position redundant.

The Applicant contests his Fiscal Year 2018 performance rating of 2.

The Applicant challenges (i) the decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) that she committed misconduct in violation of Principle 3 of the Principles of Staff Employment, Staff Rule 3.00, paragraphs 6.01(a), (b), and (c), and Staff Rule 3.01 and (ii) the imposition of disciplinary sanction in the form of termination of her employment contract. The Applicant further contends that there were due process violations and procedural irregularities in the investigation conducted by the Office of Ethics and Business Conduct (EBC).

The Tribunal finds the Application devoid of all merit as it is essentially repetitive of, and indistinguishable from, an earlier application. The Tribunal therefore deems it appropriate to dismiss this Application.

The Applicant challenges (i) his Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Review, (ii) his FY2017 performance rating of 2, (iii) the decision not to shortlist him for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929, (iv) the decision not to select him for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929, and (v) the refusal to provide feedback on the reasons why he was not shortlisted for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929.

The Applicant challenges the IFC’s acceptance of the recommendations by the Peer Review Services (PRS) Panel in Request for Review No. 400, in which the Applicant sought review of issues related to ending employment, benefits and compensation, and alleged conduct of management.

Invoking Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Applicant seeks revision of EQ (Merits), Decision No. 595 [2018].

The Applicant challenges the termination of his contract “with immediate effect and without prior notice.” The Applicant also alleges that he was placed on a “blacklist” by his former Task Team Leader (TTL). 
 

In Application No. 14, the Applicant challenges the payment of education benefits and the Bank’s deductions or refusal to pay her end of employment payments until the education benefits were certified. In Application No. 15, the Applicant challenges the failure to provide her with documentation regarding her end of employment payments and to pay her the correct amount of money owed to her on her last day of employment. In Application No. 16, the Applicant challenges the denial of access to her staff records and the “note of ending employment notice and corresponding documents,” the failure to provide her with information about “exit requirements,” the communications from her former department, which she characterizes as harassment, the breach of her confidential information, and the requirement to certify her dependents. In Application No. 17, the Applicant challenges the failure to provide her with information about the language tuition benefit, which resulted in her losing her entitlement to that benefit. In all of her Applications, the Applicant claims that she was denied “a fair and impartial process under Peer Review Services and [a] fair hearing.”