Redundancy not always linked to bleeding books
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I read with deep interest your editorial with the caption 'Review the redundancy law' published on Monday, November 10, 2014.
It is important to note that under the law, " a person whose employment is being made redundant ..." will have a right to redundancy payment if that person "has been continuously employed for the period of one hundred and four weeks ...".
It is definitely not always the case that "firms usually make employers [sic] (employees) redundant when they are in trouble and their existence imperilled".
The fundamental reasons for redundancy are outlined in Section 5 (2) (a), (b) and (c) of The EMPLOYMENT (TERMINATION REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1974).
It has also been long established by the courts that the employer whose "existence is imperilled" can establish a schedule on which the payment can be made.
While there may be merit in reviewing the late Ethlyn Norton-Coke's position on the redundancy law, such a review must be in the context of the industrial relations and economic climates when the law was promulgated then and now.