REDUNDANCE AND BUSINESS NECESSITY

Semester 1 2015-2016
Yousif
1125903
Date assigned: 21/9/2015
Your email
: yos_24@hotmail.com
Your destination email: yusof.edu@gmail.com

16/11/2015
Date due: 17/11/2015

QUESTION 1
As an independent arbitrator, do you think the Claimants service redundant as a result of the
reorganization, thereby justifying the retrenchment? Take a position, whether yes or no, and
justify your position with precise argument.
(20 marks)
The company has reached a decision to reorganize the company's structure and employee
chart based on many factors such as the experience of the employee, seniority, and the
necessity to the organization, management, however it should be complied with the Last-infirst-out principle, as newer employees should be terminated first.
In my opinion, I think the Claimant service was redundant after the reorganization due to
many reasons, the first one is that the company has decided to lower the number of
management layers and bureaucratic processes to increase efficiency and reliability of the
management system, therefore the Claimant position was endangered as she was already
working as a senior manager for a department that might not exist after the organization,
secondly, after reorganizing the company's structure and downsizing the number of
employees, the company gave senior and management position based purely on seniority as
Nachiapan and Molina have joined the company well before the Claimant did, which proves
that the company has complied with the Last-in-First-Out principle, not to mention that the
company has already informed the claimant of reorganization well before it happens and the
Claimant has ignored the event.

QUESTION 2
If you were Ms. Tee (the Claimant), do you think the arbitrator would give you a favorable
award? Take a position, whether yes or no, and justify it by using one of the specific
principles of Maqasid al-Sharia.
(20 marks)
I don't think that the arbitrator will give the claimant a favorable reward, due to many reasons,
first, the company has already informed the Claimant of the downsizing decision well before
it was implemented, which can mean that the position might not exist anymore due to less
management positions being implemented, secondly, the company has already complied with
the Last-In-First-Out principle which gives priority to other more senior managers than the
claimant, not to mention that the claimant and many other employees were working on an old
system of the company which they lack experience of, the company's services has changed
from old technology to a newer more efficient technologies, which resulted in hiring new
experts in that field replacing old staff including the claimant.
From Maqasid Al sharia Point of view, I think that the claimant has already received what she
deserves as form of rights and termination benefits, it is compulsory in Islam to give people
their rights, and the claimant has already got her.