Why do employers fear the IDT?

On Friday, the Supreme Court quashed an award of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) that had been made against an employer. Amongst the reasons was the shocking revelation that two of the three members of the IDT panel had been supplied with the company's evidence a whole seven months after ruling against them.

This is the case of Milex v The Industrial Disputes Tribunal, where two of the three members of the panel had to be replaced by new IDT members.

At the point at which the replacement was done, the company's witnesses had already testified but the employee had not. The IDT's rules require that the new members on the panel should receive the verbatim notes of all evidence already given before they proceed to hear the case.

The panel unanimously ruled against the company, preferring the employee's testimony over that of the company's witnesses. It was discovered years later, when the IDT's award was challenged in court, that two of the three members of the panel had not received the full verbatim notes until after handing down their award.

The court quashed that award because the law doesn't permit the substitution of more than one member without the hearing starting over from scratch, but the judge also commented that the IDT's actions were a breach of the company's right to natural justice.

Interestingly, the IDT itself, whilst conceding that the award should be quashed, nonetheless asked the court to reject the argument that they acted without due regard to natural justice.

There are other examples of (what appears to be) special consideration being given to former employees by the IDT. One that comes to mind is a case involving a teller at a credit union in Montego Bay. She was dismissed in September 2014 for being rude to a woman who had attempted to do too many transactions in the express line. The employee walked away leaving her standing by herself at the window.

More News...
Chat with Penny
Chat Now!
    Your Answer