Summary
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 from the company. She subsequently sought redundancy payments for her 26 years of service, though the company refused. Conciliatory meetings at the Ministry failed, leading to a referral to the IDT. The IDT hearings also faced delays, due to objections from the company regarding the jurisdiction and nature of the dispute, though these concerns were clarified by the Ministry.
The company argued that the referral to the IDT was ultra vires and not an industrial dispute. It maintained that the aggrieved was not entitled to redundancy payment since her services were re-engaged with the new firm, and thus no termination occurred. Conversely, the aggrieved argued that the employees were informed vaguely about changes to the company’s structure, but it had been ascertained that some workers would be made redundant, whereas others would be offered employment by a new firm. The aggrieved contended that she was made redundant, as the employment terms she received from the new firm differed significantly from her original contract.
Firstly, the IDT determined that it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter. It subsequently found that the aggrieved’s employment with the company was surreptitiously terminated, and her employment with the new firm was not a continuation, as the terms of the offer were substantially different. The IDT also determined that the aggrieved had a legitimate expectation that her years of service would be preserved, and that the company’s failure to recognize her 26 years of service was unreasonable.
Consequently, the tribunal awarded the aggrieved 68 weeks' basic salary as redundancy payment.
A claim to grant an Order of Certiorari to quash 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.
