Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member’s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external consultants who had found that the programme failed to meet the needs of the population of Somalia. The reform towards a new programme took place over several months, during which the Applicant was informed of the need to change the programme. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the decision to close down the said programme had been made by the donors, the Respondent having only played an advisory role with regards to the effectiveness of the programme. In the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant failed to prove that the restructuration had for sole aim to abolish his post. As to the Applicant’s contention that his contract was terminated while he was on sick leave, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was fit to return to work when his contract ended. It further noted that the Respondent extended the Applicant’s contract for another two months after the end of the RRIDP programme in order to help him find alternative employment and recover from his extended sick leave. The Tribunal therefore did not find any evidence that the Respondent breached the Applicant’s right to due process as provided in ST/AI/2005/3.