Due to operational circumstances the job of B, a bookkeeper at a parent company who has 9 years of service, has become redundant. The company has several subsidiaries under the control of the parent company. During consultations B agrees that retention of necessary skills should be used as the criterion in deciding who should be retrenched. B argues that she should be bumped into any existing job that she is able to carry out anywhere in the group whose incumbent is either more junior to her or has fewer years of service. The employer argues that, because B has agreed that retention of necessary skills shall be the criterion used, B cannot bump out any employee whose skills are superior to that of B. The employer argues further that ‘years of service’ also cannot be used because B has agreed that retention of necessary skills shall be the criterion used. Who is right?
Just because you’re looking at superior skills it doesn’t mean you can’t look at length of service. They must look at length of service as well and if she can do the work done by another employee with less service then she can take that position.