IDT 17/2009
Summary
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 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 29/2013
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 dispute, and referral
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
