Summary
The Company made seventy-four employees redundant. All workers, except the four aggrieved accepted the terms of redundancy. The union contested the aggrieved worker’s dismissals, though the company rejected the Union’s contentions, leading the matter to be referred to the IDT.
The company contended that it had engaged in a series of consultations with the Union about the need for cost reduction and the redundancy exercise. It further contended that the exercise was conducted in accordance with the ETRPA and the Collective Labour Agreement. Lastly, it argued that the selection of employees for redundancy was fair and justifiable. The union refuted the company’s claims, contending the company did not adequately consult with them before executing the redundancy. It also alleged that the company failed to abide by the Collective Labour Agreement which afforded senior union delegates protection from lay-offs and recalls.
The IDT concluded that the company’s redundancy exercise was genuine, having complied with the ETRPA. It further determined that the collective agreement’s terms did not afford protection to union delegates in cases of redundancy. Lastly, it was held that the company provided for discussions and sufficiently detailed explanations regarding the redundancy exercise with the union, making the redundancies objective.
Consequently, the IDT determined the redundancy of the four aggrieved workers was lawful, fair and justifiable having award.
