Maya Forstater

Don’t understand your point. Tribunal is internal ergo WB group. Members are appointed by Bank staff ergo WB. Members are presumably paid by WB ergo WB. This absolutely about the WB. If @Oxfam @SaveUKNews @equal_education argued internal tribunals stopped them, it’d be ok? 1/2

No - tribunal members are appointed by the executive directors (ie country reps) for fixed terms and are not staff https://webapps.worldbank.org/sites/wbat/Pages/Composition.aspx …

I said “appointed by” staff. Presumably an Exec Director of the WB is also a member of staff if they have executive responsibilities?

My understanding: They are not "staff" in the normal sense as they are appointed or elected by member govts/groups of member govts. Eg if the UK ED retires the UK appoints a new one rather than the WB appointing one as you would with a staff position

Tbh this & other thread seem Kafkaesque semantics. EDs part of overall govrnce & executive architecture of WB group. Yes, clear that some staff don’t like the decision, but design, running & accountability of WB not good enough. Own ‘laws’ Corp rules =/= law else E India Co?

It makes sense that WB staff, wherever they are from or deployed should be working within the same framework of employment rules & policies. So some kind of employment tribunal for dispute resolution needed. I suspect if we were to try to design it might look something like this

Not necessarily. Multinationals have employees hired by local companies all the time. Hiring subsidiary employment laws apply to that subsidiary’s employees. Doesn’t stop MNCs from functioning.

Intergovernmental organisations are not multinational corporations. The World Bank is not a US company, the ILO is not a Swiss company, UN Environment is not a Kenyan company etc...