IDT 21/2014
Summary
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 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 16/2007
The company granted the aggrieved leave, after an individual requested vacation on his behalf. The company however soon learned that the aggrieved had been convicted of assault and sentenced to ten days of hard labor during his leave. He was then
IDT 32/2016
IDT 6/2008
The Aggrieved’s employment was terminated by the University on grounds of “Unauthorised Absence” and she sought the representation of the Union in this matter.
The University contended that they had just cause for the dismissal of the Aggrieved as her
