IDT 56/2016
IDT 21/2022
The Aggrieved was contracted to work with the company for two years, but was terminated due to inconsistent/poor performance.
The Aggrieved contended that though he was on a probationary period, the reasons for termination must be established, and the Company unfairly terminated him.
IDT 40/2018
IDT 10/2008
Summary
The aggrieved was employed by the company as a Mechanical Maintenance Man Grade 2 after completing a four-year apprenticeship with them. Three months later, the company made her redundant after conducting a manpower review and concluding that her department was overstaffed.
IDT 47/2022
IDT 27/2022
IDT 17/2021
IDT 1/2019
IDT 11/2015
In January 2014, the company began outsourcing its functions to another entity to cut operational costs. Initially, the aggrieved was informed that his position would be outsourced, marking him for redundancy. However, because he was two months short of retirement age,
IDT 21/2014
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
IDT 17/2008
The matter, which surrounded the aggrieved’s termination by the company was initially referred to the Tribunal by the Ministry of Labour, afterwhich, both parties submitted briefs and requested to commence local level discussions. On October 23, 2009, the parties then submitted
IDT 37/2018
