The issues for determination by the Tribunal are: (i) Was the JEU right to refuse the administrative review of the decision to place the Applicant’s job at level 20? (ii) Should the Tribunal order release of the audit findings? (iii) Should the Tribunal reserve the Applicant’s right to appeal to the Tribunal the decision of the VPCTR to confirm the grade of her position at level 20 until 90 days after the release of the job audit findings? 

The Tribunal identifies the following as the three remedies sought by the Applicant: (i) the rescission of the Bank’s decision to grade the Applicant at Grade 19; (ii) the making by the Bank of demonstrable efforts to place the Applicant in a Grade 22 position before September 30, 1987; (iii) the replacement of the Bank’s decision to limit the ‘grandfathering’ of the Applicant’s salary at the Grade 22 level to the period ending on September 30, 1987 by a decision that the Applicant’s salary should be ‘grandfathered’ at that level until such time as the maximum salary for Grade 19 shall have reached the level of the Applicant’s Grade 22 salary on September 30, 1987.

Withdrawal.

In her Application, as well as before the Job Grading Appeals Board, the Applicant complained that her job description was not properly understood; that the problem-solving content of the job was not properly recognized and that in the know-how section language skills were not included. She added that her job had a high level of accountability, not only within the Unit but also externally. On these grounds, the Applicant requested that her grade should be changed to level 16.

The Applicant is requesting the rescission of the decision not to accord her a grade 23, when her position was graded at level 22. She is requesting that the Respondent maintain her, for purposes of compensation administration, at grade 23, contending that she has a right to be “grandfathered” indefinitely.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant claims that her position in the service of the Respondent has been improperly graded at level 16, as Administrative Secretary II, rather than at level 17, as Office Manager. This claim, and the contentions put forward in its support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Apkarian, Decision No. 58 [1988], decided this day. The Tribunal in that case gave full consideration to such claim and contentions, and concluded that they were in part meritorious and that the granting of relief for intangible injury, in an amount equivalent to one month of the Applicant’s net base salary, was proper.

The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s grading of her position as Administrative Secretary at level 16, rather than as Office Manager at level 17, constitutes willful and arbitrary action in violation of her contract of employment. As the Tribunal has frequently stated, a staff member’s terms of employment include pertinent staff rules promulgated by management of the Bank. Among those staff rules are those governing the standards and procedures of the Job Grading Program instituted by the Respondent in 1982.

The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s grading mechanism as applied to her case resulted in nonobservance of her contract of appointment and conditions of employment. Said non-observance, according to the Applicant, resulted from the facts that: (a) the generic criteria for the PRJ-C with a grade level 24 as applied to the Applicant did not meet the requirements of Staff Principle 6.2(b); (b) the review process of the grading decision expanded the requirements for grade level 24, by adding to them some new ones not originally enumerated in the criteria; (c) the Applicant was discriminated against by her immediate supervisors in a way that eventually reflected negatively on the grading of her position.

In her Application, as well as before the Job Grading Appeals Board, the Applicant complained of the manner in which the specialized Staff Assistant position was described, which she considered to be a transparent attempt to deny access to promotions, to negate the value of experience, skills and career development, and to renege on previous standards. She added that the decision to abolish certain grade levels and collapse all Staff Assistant grades into one E level grade was entirely arbitrary. On these grounds, the Applicant contended that the Respondent “cannot avail itself of the flaws in its own grading system or its inadequacy in distinguishing various classifications to grade Applicant at the lowest possible level.”

The Tribunal has to decide the effect of the Applicant’s letter of May 7, 1986 on his earlier complaints, namely, that no appointment letter was issued to him when he was appointed by the Respondent; that in fixing payment of his salary, the Regional Manager UNDP/World Bank project violated certain rules as a result of which violation the Applicant was denied the differential in salary to which he was entitled; and that he was not paid retirement benefits.

The Applicant claims that Staff Rule 5.09, which sets forth the basic procedures for the comprehensive Bank reorganization, is invalid. To the extent that this claim purports to assert the violation of rights of staff members other than himself, the Applicant’s application is inadmissible: Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987]. The Applicant also, however, alleges that he has suffered a particular violation of his own contract of employment as a result of the implementation of Rule 5.09. He claims that the Bank’s decision to remove him in the course of the reorganization from the position of Regional Vice President, LAC, and its appointment of another person to that position in his stead, was improper.

The Respondent claims the Applicant has no standing because she has not exhausted internal remedies as required by the Staff Rules and that there are no exceptional circumstances which warrant the waiver of the requirement that internal remedies be exhausted.  The Applicant challenges the validity of Staff Rule 5.09 which sets forth the basic procedures for the comprehensive Bank reorganization. She claims that the rule was issued without meaningful consultation, that it is substantively discriminatory and otherwise unfair, and that in particular its provision for a release of claims on the part of staff members accepting certain compensation packages upon separation from Bank service is a violation of staff members’ fundamental rights. To the extent that the Applicant purports to challenge Rule 5.09 as that rule adversely affects staff members other than herself, the Tribunal has determined that such an application is inadmissible. Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987]. The Applicant also, however, alleges that she has suffered a particular violation of her own contract of employment as a result of the reorganization and the implementation of Rule 5.09. She claims that the dispersion of the functions of her former position as Data Administrator, and her consequent inability gainfully to serve in that position, were effected unfairly, without discernible criteria, and without explanation to her. 

The Applicant challenges the validity of Staff Rule 5.09 which sets forth the basic procedures for the comprehensive Bank reorganization. He claims that the rule was issued without meaningful consultation, that it is substantively discriminatory and otherwise unfair, and that in particular its provision for a waiver of claims on the part of staff members accepting certain compensation packages upon separation from Bank service is a violation of staff members’ fundamental rights. To the extent that the Applicant purports to challenge Rule 5.09 as that rule adversely affects staff members other than himself, the Tribunal has determined that such an application is inadmissible: Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987]. To the extent that the Applicant attacks the general terms of Rule 5.09, apart from its implementation by the Respondent in a decision that affects the Applicant in particular, the Tribunal has held in the same decision that such an application is inadmissible. The Applicant also, however, alleges that he has suffered a particular violation of his own employment agreement as a result of the reorganization and the implementation of Rule 5.09.

The Applicant challenges the validity of Staff Rule 5.09 which sets forth the basic procedures for the comprehensive Bank reorganization. He claims that the rule was issued without meaningful consultation, that it is substantively discriminatory and otherwise unfair, and that in particular its provision for a waiver of claims on the part of staff members accepting certain compensation packages upon separation from Bank service is a violation of staff members’ fundamental rights. To the extent that the Applicant purports to challenge Staff Rule 5.09 as that rule adversely affects staff members other than himself, the Tribunal has determined that such an application is inadmissible: Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987]. To the extent that the Applicant attacks the general terms of Staff Rule 5.09, apart from its implementation by the Respondent in a decision that affects the Applicant in particular, the Tribunal has held in the same decision that such an application is inadmissible. The Applicant also, however, alleges that he has suffered a particular violation of his own employment contract as a result of the reorganization and the implementation of Rule 5.09.

The Applicant claims standing to allege that the Respondent’s formulation and implementation of rules regarding the reorganization of the Bank staff constitute a non-observance of the contract of employment and terms of appointment of all members of the staff and in particular of the Applicant’s own employment contract. These claims, and the contentions put forward in their support, are identical in all pertinent respects to those presented by the Applicant in Agodo, Decision No.41 [1987], decided this day. The Tribunal in Agodo gave full consideration to these claims and contentions, found them to lack merit and dismissed the application. For the same reasons, the application must be dismissed in this case as well.