The dispute arose from the decision by the company to discontinue the "Holiday House" benefit, which had been historically provided to staff, originally by a previous entity before its acquisition by the company. The Association opposed this decision, leading to a dispute, and referral to the IDT.
The Association contended that the Holiday House benefit was a long-standing custom and practice, integral to the employment package. It also presented evidence from former senior managers and current staff, demonstrating that the benefit had been in place for years and was expected to continue. The company conversely argued that it had the sole authority to discontinue the benefit and claimed it was not contractually obligated to maintain the " benefit. It also cited financial challenges and the need for cost-cutting measures as reasons for discontinuing the benefit. Lastly, it argued that the IDT did not have the jurisdiction to reinstate the benefit.
The IDT concluded that the "Holiday House" benefit had become a legitimate expectation for the staff due to its long-standing provision. having found that the benefit was an implied term of the employment contract based on the consistent historical provision and staff's expectation. It also ruled that it had the capacity to make awards regarding conditions of employment.
Consequently, the tribunal awarded the restoration of the Holiday House facility, and directed the company and association to engage in consultation to arrive at a consensus.
