Iberostar Rose Hall Beach Hotel v. UAWU

The Company initiated redundancy and lay-off proceedings. The Union and Company subsequently agreed to postpone redundancy, but the Company disbursed redundancy payments and letters to the workers anyway. The company later reopened on a phased basis but did not re-employ union delegates and only a minority of unionized employees. The matter was referred to the IDT.

The Company argued that a global recession impacted their business, necessitating the redundancies and lay-offs. It also claimed to have communicated with the Union through various meetings. Lastly, it asserted compliance with a signed Heads of Agreement. The Union contested the Hotel's claim that the recession warranted the redundancies, noting that the downturn was seasonal. It also claimed the Hotel failed to consult them properly before the closure and did not adhere to the Labour Relations Code.