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 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 30/2022
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 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 31/2022
IDT 10/2011
The aggrieved workers were accused of facilitating fraudulent transactions from the remittance service of the company from an anonymous source. The company subsequently suspended both workers, conducted an investigation and convened a disciplinary hearing. They were consequently dismissed on September 3,
