Toyota Jamaica Ltd. v. UCASE

Summary

The Union sought to represent two of its members whose positions were made redundant at the Company.

The Company contends that the redundancy was part of their corporate survival plan given the ongoing recession and that this plan was communicated to the necessary stakeholders before it came into effect. 

The Union contended that the redundancy was disingenuous as the persons that were made redundant were part of a recent labour action against the Company. 

The IDT found that the redundancy was genuine considering the economic circumstances facing the Company. Additionally it was found that the Company did follow the standard procedures for communicating and consulting with workers regarding a redundancy.