Summary
A bank challenged its employees' registered union's standing to seek alteration of a retirement-age standing order, although two settlements, followed by an Industrial Court award, had increased retirement age from 55 to 58. The Supreme Court held on the narrow facts that the bank could not use this technical objection to evade implementation of its own settlements. It restored the alteration by setting aside the Industrial Court and High Court judgments, while expressly leaving the general legal question of the union's locus open.
Issues
- Whether the bank could resist implementation of its settled retirement-age obligation by objecting to the union's locus.
- Whether the general statutory question of a registered union's locus required decision.
Held
- Both employer and employees had a duty to implement their two settlements, which had also culminated in an award. The bank could and should have joined the implementation application and could not defeat it through a technical objection to the union's locus. (¶¶ 3, 8)
- Relief rested on those particular circumstances. The Court expressly left open the statutory question of law decided by the High Court and did not determine the union's general entitlement to apply under section 38(2). (¶ 8)
- The Industrial Court and consequential High Court judgments were set aside, with consequential employee benefits to be provided within six months. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeal allowed on the narrow implementation ground; consequential benefits to employees within six months. The general question of law concerning the union's locus was left open.