For the case study below do a research to tell me about the case, what was the disagreement, and how was it settled giving the background of the company and union involved and the conciliation. Outline the case naming the dispute, outline settlement details give views of the process and also of the results. Give references along with the URL or Doi of the websites used.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA C IN THE FULL COURT SUIT NO. MI05 OF 2000 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WOLFE, CHIEF JUSTICE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CLARKE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARSH IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JAMAICA FLOUR MILLS LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF AN AWARD BY THE INDUSTRLAL DISPUTES TRIBUNAL, I AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT BETWEEN JAMAICA FLOUR MILLS LIMITED - APPLICANT AND THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES TRIBUNAL - RESPONDENT Ransford Braharn and Miss Daniella Gentles instructed by Miss Angella Robertson of Livingston Alexander and Levy for the Applicant Mrs. Nicole Foster-Pusey instructed by the Director of State Proceedings for the Respondent <; \ Lord Gifford, Q.C, and Miss Kerry Brown for the National Workers Union, an interested party Heard on July 23,24,25 and December 17, 2001, WOLFE, C.T. The applicant seeks an Order of Certiorari to quash the award of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal arising out of a dispute between the applicant and the National Workers Union. Three workers employed to the applicant and represented by the c) National Workers Union, which held bargaining rights for workers employed at the applicant's plant, Jamaica Flour Mills Ltd. had their contract of employment terminated by letter dated August 13, 1999, on the ground of redundancy. Accompanying the termination letters of each employee was a cheque for payment in lieu of Notice. Two of the employees, namely, Michael Campbell and Ferron Gordon duly encashed the cheques. Up to the date of hearing the C: another employee Simon Suckie had not collected his cheque. Arising out of the termination orders, all other workers represented by the National Workers Union took industrial action by way of strike action in solidarity with their fellow workers. The Honorable Minister of Labour and Social Security pursuant to section llA(l)(a)(i) of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act referred the dispute to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. "To determine and settle the dispute between Jamaica Flour Mills Limited on the one hand and the National Workers Union on the other hand over the termination of employment on the grounds of redundancy of Messrs. Simon Suckie, Michael Campbell, and Ferron Gordon." Having heard the evidence the Tribunal on October 10, 2000, made the following Award. "THE Tribunal by majority HEREBY ORDERS the Company to reinstate the workers Suckie, Campbell, and Gordon with effect from the 13" August, 1999 (the date of the purported dismissals):- (i) in respect of Mr. Simon Suckie with full wages, and (ii) in respect of Messrs. Michael Campbell and Ferron Gordon with sixty percent (60%) of their wages up to the 21st of October, 2000 or the date on which the Company re-engages them and they resume their duties, whichever is earlier and full wages thereafter." The grounds upon which relief is sought are: (i) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal failed and/or neglected to properly construe the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act and in particular section 5 of the said Act. (ii) The Industrial Dispute Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Applicant was entitled to dismiss Messrs. Simon Suckie, Michael Campbell, and Ferron Gordon (hereinafter referred to as the "said employees") in circumstances where the requirements of the applicant for the said employees of a particular kind or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish. (iii) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal failed - (1) To evaluate or to properly evaluate; or (2) To give any weight or any sufficient weight to clause 21 of the Collective Labour Agreement which expressly permitted the Applicant when making - "paramount change resulting from the introduction of new system techniques, machinery or equipment which allows a reduction of the workforce to dismiss the said employees by reason of redundancy". (iv) Clause III of the Collective Labour Agreement recognizes Management's rights as follows: "The Company shall have the sole right to direct the workforce, the right to hire, to assign, to discipline or discharge for just cause; the right to plan, direct and control plant operations; the right to introduce new or improved production methods, facilities or facility arrangements; the amount of supervision and work force necessary; establishment of reasonable rules, determining job duties, scheduling of production; establishment of quality standards; determination of the extent to which the facilities will be operated; and production or employment to be increased or decreased are rights vested exclusively in the Company; the Industrial Disputes Tribunal failed to consider this provision or give any or any sufficient weight to this provisionf' (v) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal, having found that the Applicant led "cogent evidence justifying the company's redundancy decision", fell into error when it held the dismissal of the said employees to be unjustified. (vi) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal erred in law when it rejected the Applicant's submission that redundancy payment and dismissal are synonymous. (vii) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal failed to properly construe and/or apply the Labour Relations Code. (viii) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal erred in law when it elevated the Labour Relations Code to a rule of law or treat the Labour Relations Code as binding on the parties. (ix) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal failed to give weight and/or any sufficient weight to the evidence led on behalf of the applicant explaining the reasons for not allowing the Labour Relations Code which was inferred alia: That the applicant gave notice of intention to terminate the contracts of employment by reason of redundancy on the morning of 13 August 1999 as the applicant feared that any additional notice could result in sabotage, harm to the public and/or damage to its plant and equipment. The approach of the applicant was determined by their previous experiences at the plant when terminating the contract of employment of employees by reason of redundancy. (x) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal failed to abide by its terms of reference and or acted in excess of the said terms of reference. (xi) The employees, having voluntarily and unconditionally accepted payment in lieu of notice, the Industrial Disputes Tribunal ought to have treated their contracts of employment as being lawfully and properly terminated, and consequently, the Industrial Disputes Tribunal erred in law and/or misdirected itself when it ordered employees reinstated. (xii) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal ought to have given the applicant permission to lead further or fresh evidence relating to the employment of Michael Campbell subsequent to his dismissal. (xiii) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction and/ or without jurisdiction. (xiv) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal acted ultra tires and asked itself the wrong questions and took into consideration irrelevant matters and/or failed to consider relevant matters. (xv) The Industrial Disputes Tribunal acted unreasonably and arbitrarily. Mr. Braham for the applicant crystallized the position of the applicant by stating that Judicial Review was being sought on the first two grounds established in Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v. Minister of the Civil Service [I9841 3 AER 935, namely: 1. Illegality or error of law 2. Irrationality or the Wednesbury unreasonableness The arguments will therefore be examined against this background. 1. Illegalifv or Error of Law Counsel contended that the employees were dismissed pursuant to c: section 5 of The Emplovmmt (Termination and Redundanw Pammts) Act which stipulates as follows: "(1) Where on or after the appointed day an employee who has been continuously employed for the period of one hundred and four weeks ending on the relevant date is dismissed by his employee by reason of redundancy the employer and any other person to whom the ownership of his business is transferred during the period of twelve months after such dismissal shall, subject to the provisions of this Part, be liable to pay to the employee a sum (in this Act referred to as a 'redundancy payment') calculated in such manner as shall be prescribed. (2) For the purposes of this Part an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is attributable wholly or partly to - (a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him or has ceased, or intends to cease, to cany on that business in the place where the employee was so employed; or (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees in the place where he was so employed, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish; or (c) the fact that he has suffered personal injury which was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or has developed any disease, prescribed under this Act, being a disease due to the nature of his employment" Counsel submitted that once an employer shows that he has observed the provisions of section 5 when dismissing an employee on the ground of C: redundancy the question of unfair dismissal or unjustifiable dismissal cannot properly arise.