IDT 52/2016
Summary
The Union members, formerly the Engineering Department personnel, were placed on administrative leave with their employment later terminated for an industrial action which saw the Company suffering $30 Million in losses.
The Company contended that the matter was
IDT 17/2009
The Union represented six workers whose positions were made redundant by the Company.
The Company contended that the redundancy was justified based on the prevailing economic circumstances at the time, and contended that they adhered to the procedures established under
IDT 12/2006
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.
IDT 10/2020
IDT 9/2010
The Company initiated redundancy and lay-off proceedings. The Union and Company subsequently agreed to postpone redundancy, but the Company disbursed redundancy payments and letters to the workers anyway. The company later reopened on a phased basis but did not re-employ union delegates and only
IDT 5/2009
The Authority reduced the benefits for a particular department of their organisation. The Association represented the workers in the department as the reduction was deemed unfair.
The Authority contended that they exercised their right to reduce these benefits per their
IDT 1/2004
In July 2002, the Union claimed that most employees at the Company were union members and sought recognition for bargaining rights. The company suggested involving the Ministry of Labour, which prepared a ballot for February 2004. The company obtained an injunction
IDT 25/2013
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
IDT 31/2022
IDT 7/2009
IDT 32/2016
IDT 11/2011
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
