The Applicant challenges the misattribution and wrongful taking of his intellectual property and “the unannounced decision to blacklist [the] Applicant for [short-term] consultancies.”

The Applicant challenges (i) the non-renewal of his term appointment while he was on Short-Term Disability (STD), (ii) his 2017 and 2018 performance reviews, and (iii) the decision not to convert his term appointment to an open-ended appointment. 4. On 23 April 2021, the Bank submitted preliminary objections to the Application on the basis of untimeliness and failure to exhaust internal remedies. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections. 

The Applicant challenges the IFC’s compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment in EO (No. 2) (Merits), Decision No. 629 [2020] in respect of the following: (i) the delay in calculating the adjustment to his Long-Term Disability (LTD) payments and the failure to correctly resolve the issues with the adjustments in a timely manner; and (ii) the decision to omit the period of 1 July 2017 to 15 July 2017 when calculating his retroactive salary adjustment. On 2 April 2021, the IFC submitted preliminary objections. This judgment addresses the IFC’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant alleges that the Bank (i) improperly divested him of his duties as Country Manager (CM) for Sierra Leone following the publication of a media article in the Sierra Leone Telegraph in January 2018; (ii) improperly failed to shortlist him for CM positions in the Republic of Yemen (hereinafter Yemen) and in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (hereinafter Lao PDR); and (iii) improperly failed to provide him with feedback regarding his exclusion from the aforementioned shortlists and his non-selection for a CM position in Mongolia.

In his Application, the Applicant contends that (i) the IFC “failed to follow a fair and proper process” in conducting its voluntary separation (VS) program, and (ii) the IFC “did not have a reasonable and observable basis not to grant the Applicant’s application for VS, […] and discriminated, or otherwise acted in bad faith, against the Applicant.” 

In his Application, the Applicant contends that (i) the IFC “failed to follow a fair and proper process” in conducting its voluntary separation (VS) program, and (ii) the IFC “did not have a reasonable and observable basis not to grant the Applicant’s application for VS, […] and discriminated, or otherwise acted in bad faith, against the Applicant.”

In his Application, the Applicant contends that (i) the IFC’s voluntary separation (VS) program did not follow a fair and proper process, and (ii) the IFC’s decision to reject his VS application was unreasonable and specific facts “support the conclusion that he should have been granted VS” or that, in the alternative, his position should have been declared redundant.

The Applicant is challenging the IFC’s decision to make her employment redundant.

The Applicant is challenging the 17 December 2019 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (ARP) denying his claim for workers’ compensation.

Withdrawal.

The Applicant challenges the decision to shorten the duration of her Short-Term Temporary (STT) contract. On 23 September 2020, the Bank submitted preliminary objections challenging the timeliness of the Application. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections

The Applicant is challenging the IFC’s decision to make her employment redundant, the Peer Review Services dismissal of her Request for Review No. 459, and a Performance Management Review of managerial decisions regarding her Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) performance evaluation and performance rating. The IFC filed preliminary objections to the Application on 22 October 2020. This judgment addresses the IFC’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant is challenging the validity of the Mediation Agreement signed by her on 19 February 2017, and the non-renewal of her term contract with the IFC. The IFC filed preliminary objections to the Application on 16 October 2020. This judgment addresses the IFC’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant challenges the decision of Peer Review Services (PRS), dated 24 January 2020, to dismiss his Request for Review. On 30 October 2020, the Bank submitted preliminary objections challenging the timeliness of the Application. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant is challenging “the process for the selection of the person to lead the Coordination Unit, [the Applicant’s] non-selection to lead the Coordination Unit, as well as his demotion and removal from leadership.”

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to extend her appointment and the Bank’s failure to provide a reason for the non-extension.

In their respective Applications, the Applicants contend that (i) they were subjected to sexual harassment in violation of Bank policies; (ii) the Bank failed to provide adequate protections for the Applicants and other staff members; and (iii) the Ethics and Business Conduct Department (EBC) investigation was flawed.

In his Application, the Applicant contests (i) the determination made by the Vice President, Human Resources Development (HRDVP) that the Applicant engaged in misconduct and (ii) all disciplinary measures imposed therein.

The Applicant challenges 12 different decisions made by the Bank covering the period from December 2017 through May 2018 in connection with the end of his term appointment as Country Manager (CM) of Sierra Leone and non-shortlisting and non-feedback decisions for four different CM positions. On 16 February 2021, the Bank submitted preliminary objections challenging the admissibility of some of the Applicant’s claims on the grounds of untimeliness and failure to exhaust internal remedies. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant challenges the determination by the Vice President, Human Resources Development (HRDVP) that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that he committed misconduct and the imposition of disciplinary measures against him. The Applicant also contests the Bank’s decision to “terminate his STC contract and non-payment of that contract.”