IDT 47/2022
IDT 11/2015
Summary
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 17/2009
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 17/2018
IDT 30/2017
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 29/2020
IDT 9/2020
IDT 7/2009
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
