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. The Union protested the dismissal, after which The Ministry referred the matter to the IDT.
The Company maintained that it had right to adjust staffing levels as needed in conducting manpower reviews. It also emphasized that her termination was not related to conduct, but purely due to redundancy. Conversely, the Union argued that the aggrieved’s dismissal was unjustified and claimed victimization. It also contended her termination was without consultation or prior notice to the Union, and that the department continued to employ non-continuous workers after her termination. Lastly, the Union raised issues of gender discrimination, noting past resistance to her employment as the only female in the department.
The Tribunal found that there was no substantial evidence to support claims of victimization or gender discrimination. However, it determined that the Company had failed to adhere to the communication and consultation requirements set forth in the Labour Relations Code.
Consequently, the IDT deemed the dismissal unjustifiable, and awarded the reinstatement of the aggrieved, with full benefits, effective from the date of the award, and compensation equivalent to 39 weeks of basic wages.
