IDT 10/2008
Summary
The aggrieved was employed by the company as a Mechanical Maintenance Man Grade 2 after completing a four-year apprenticeship with them. Three months later, the company made her redundant after conducting a manpower review and concluding that her department was overstaffed.
IDT 52/2016
The Union members, formerly the Engineering Department personnel, were placed on administrative leave with their employment later terminated for an industrial action which saw the Company suffering $30 Million in losses.
The Company contended that the matter was
IDT 21/2014
The aggrieved was employed by the company, from 1987. On July 12, 2013, company workers were informed that changes would occur, affecting some jobs. The aggrieved then received a job offer from another firm, who she believed would take over operations
IDT 22/2021
IDT 21/2021
IDT 11/2018
IDT 10/2020
IDT 9/2010
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
IDT 16/2007
The company granted the aggrieved leave, after an individual requested vacation on his behalf. The company however soon learned that the aggrieved had been convicted of assault and sentenced to ten days of hard labor during his leave. He was then
IDT 6/2017
IDT 39/2017
On July 10, 2017, the IDT requested briefs from both parties regarding the dispute. However, the company and the union submitted a joint letter to the tribunal, indicating that they had arrived at a settlement agreement.
The terms
IDT 44/2017
