The pair initiated proceedings earlier this year, after losing their jobs in June 2001 following a cost-cutting exercise to reduce the number of casual workers at the company.
Magee worked for Watmoughs for over six years, while Depledge had been with the company for four. They claimed in court that the redundancy criteria did not take in to account their length of service.
A delighted Magee said: “I’m relieved it’s nearly over - the compensation we will receive will be decided in next few weeks. I’m more happy though that we have been vindicated - everything we have said all along has been proved right in a court of law.”
Tribunal chair Christine Lee concluded: “It is highly probable that both applicants would have retained their employment had a proper selection criteria been established.”
Management did not enter in to individual consultation with the 75 casual workers whose jobs were threatened, but the company argued that the GPMU union had approved a points-based system based on a chart of skills.
Magee concluded: “I’m sure this will have repercussions for other companies in the way they treat their so-called casual staff. We were denied employment status for so long, and without that you have no rights.”
Magee and Depledge had been paying subs to the GPMU, but they allege that they did not receive proper representation and both are now considering legal action against the union.
Polestar Watmoughs has declined to make any further comment.
“This has been going on for so long now, it’s cost us a fortune and we ran out of money a while ago, so we even had to do a lot of the legal work ourselves. The pressure we have been under has been tremendous, but it’s all been worth it,” said Magee.
Story by Mark Williams
