The Applicant is contesting (i) the decision of the Human Resources Vice President (HRVP) to impose entry conditions upon him when seeking permission to access the Bank’s premises and (ii) the HRVP’s decision to require that the Applicant be escorted when he is on the Bank’s premises.

The Applicant is contesting the decision of the Human Resources Vice President (HRVP) of 4 November 2016 to impose on her disciplinary measures for misconduct.

The Applicant challenges (i) his Fiscal Year 2016 (FY2016) Annual Review, (ii) his FY2016 performance rating of 2, (iii) the Opportunity to Improve (OTI) plan dated 28 November 2016, (iv) the recommended termination of his appointment in accordance with Staff Rule 7.01, Section 11, and (v) the non-extension of his term appointment.

The Applicant challenges (i) her Fiscal Year 2016 (FY2016) Annual Review, (ii) her FY2016 performance rating of 2, and (iii) the Opportunity to Improve plan (OTI) dated 24 October 2016, and amended on 8 November 2016.

The Applicant alleges that the Bank breached its promise to resolve her “permatemp” situation, abused its discretion in failing to renew her short-term consultant (STC) contract, failed to communicate with her clearly regarding the removal of her work program, and failed to treat her fairly as required by the Principles of Staff Employment.

The Applicant challenges the decision to give her a 2.5% ad hoc salary increase to remedy disparity in her pay compared to her peers.

Withdrawal.

Invoking Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Applicant seeks revision of DP, Decision No. 547 [2016].

The Applicant challenges: “a. [t]he decision to force her to take Long Term Disability [LTD]; b. [s]eparation from the Bank Group on grounds of LTD; c. [f]ailure to implement the Tribunal’s Decision No. 528 in a fair and timely fashion; and d. [f]ailure to properly notify her of decisions affecting her career.”

The Applicant challenges: (i) her 2015 Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP); (ii) her 2015 Salary Review Increase (SRI) rating; (iii) the implementation of her Opportunity to Improve Plan (OTI); (iv) the decision by management to terminate her employment; (v) her placement on administrative leave; and (vi) the restriction on her access to Bank Group premises.

The Applicant challenges the 3 October 2016 decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

The Applicant contests the following: (i) the decision of 3 February 2015 in which Human Resources (HR) informed the Applicant that he was not shortlisted for the position of ICT (Global Informatics and Communication Technologies Department) Practice Manager in the Transport and ICT Global Practice (GTIDR); (ii) the Applicant’s 2015 Overall Performance Evaluation (OPE); and (iii) the Applicant’s 2015 performance rating.

The Applicant challenges the following: (i) denial of her request for Compensatory Leave, (ii) failure to follow proper procedures regarding her forced reassignment, (iii) that her new job description of Office Manager is not in line with the Bank’s guidelines, and (iv) irregularities in her FY2015 mid-year performance review, which also constitute retaliation.

The Applicant challenges: a) the “decision to continue her on [Short Term Disability (STD)] at 70% of her salary”; b) the “refusal to follow lawful procedure required by her medical certification that she is ready and able to return to her position in the Bank”; c) the Bank’s “collusion with the Disability Administrator, the Reed Group, to unlawfully require [the] Applicant to undergo an Independent Medical Evaluation, (IME), for Long Term Disability (LTD) despite her Return to Work Medical Certification”; and d) the Bank’s decision to “place [the] Applicant on Administrative Leave, but to pay her salary at STD equivalent of 70% as though she continued to be on STD status and to deny her the full benefits due and payable according to her family entitlements.”

The Applicant challenges the denial of her request to be returned to duties in the Main Clinic of the Bank unless she first undergoes a physical and psychological evaluation and is deemed fit to work in that environment.

The Applicant challenges the decision of the Human Resources Vice President (HRVP) of 14 April 2016 to terminate his employment for misconduct

The Applicant challenges the following: (i) the Bank’s breach of a promise to grant the Applicant a one-year Extended-Term Consultant (ETC) contract; (ii) the non-renewal of the Applicant’s Short-Term Consultant (STC) contract; and (iii) the Bank’s refusal to provide a letter of reference to the Applicant.

The Applicant challenges the decision to initiate an investigation into his recording of a conversation with the Vice President of his unit, without the latter’s knowledge or consent. The Applicant contends that Locke Lord, the law firm hired to conduct the investigation, grossly violated his due process rights and that his case was improperly publicized.

Application summarily dismissed. In this third Application, the Applicant lists the following as decisions contested the withholding of the EBC Report of Investigation and the refusal of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) to take action to protect the Applicant’s rights. (The letter to the Tribunal dated March 29, 2017 from the Bank, which included the 1st page of the EBC Executive Summary, (EBC Final Report was for in camera review only) and the HRVP letter which stated that the HRVP had decided that “no misconduct” was found against [the Director General of the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG)]). The Applicant is challenging this decision and is requesting the Tribunal to determine misconduct occurred and therefore the failure to protect the Applicant’s rights as a staff member in accordance with Staff Rules and Principles of the Bank. 

Application summarily dismissed.