Summary
In January 2014, the company began outsourcing its functions to another entity to cut operational costs. Initially, the aggrieved was informed that his position would be outsourced, marking him for redundancy. However, because he was two months short of retirement age, the company withdrew his name from the redundancy list. After attempts at conciliation by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, failed the matter was referred the dispute to the IDT.
The company contended that the aggrieved’s employment was terminated due to retirement, and that the IDT lacked jurisdiction, considering the aggrieved’s claim was based on an expectation of redundancy, which did not qualify as an industrial dispute. Moreover, the company argued that the aggrieved sought no-pay leave to remain employed in a bid to receive pension benefits, while working with the new firm. Conversely, the aggrieved claimed a legitimate expectation of redundancy because his name was initially on the list of employees. He also stated that the company's actions, including the rejected no-pay leave application and the lack of communication about his employment status for pension purposes, were inconsistent with other workers previously employed by the company, making him redundant.
Firstly, the IDT ruled its authority derived from the Minister's referral under the LRIDA, and that since the company did not object to the revised terms of reference, it had the authority to proceed with hearings. Secondly, it found that no credible proof was presented to show that the aggrieved’s employment status was maintained for pension purposes.
Consequently, the Tribunal awarded that the aggrieved was terminated on the grounds of redundancy.
A claim to grant an Order of Certiorari quashing the IDT’s decision by way of Judicial Review was subsequently filed by the company in the Supreme Court. Here, the Court ruled that the IDT did not have jurisdiction over redundancy matters under the LRIDA, considering the ETPRA grants the court exclusive authority to address matters of this nature. Furthermore, the court ruled that the IDT's jurisdiction arises from the LRIDA, not from the Minister of Labour's referral.
