Labour Law : Collective agreement - Interpretation - Collective agreement between hotel and hotel workers' trade union - Hotel closing for redevelopment and commercial repositioning - Previous workers of Hotel retrenched due to closure of hotel - Supplementary Agreement executed between employer and union providing for continuation of collective agreement - Reopened hotel hiring and dealing with retrenched workers on new terms - Whether terms of previous collective agreement applicable - Whether employer could unilaterally impose terms and conditions upon union without going through collective bargaining process under Industrial Relations Act 1967

The respondent owned a hotel and resort ('the old hotel') and its employees were members of the appellant - a trade union. The respondent had entered into a collective agreement dated 19 June 2003 ('the CA') with the appellant. The respondent embarked on a major redevelopment and repositioning exercise of the old hotel into a new hotel and resort, which entailed a complete cessation of business and the closure of the old hotel from 1 December 2004. All employees represented by the appellant were retrenched. The employees were dissatisfied with the retrenchment and picketed. The respondent and the appellant entered negotiations and agreed on certain terms of retrenchment. Some 100 positions of various categories were to be offered to the retrenched employees on the opening of the new hotel. A supplementary agreement dated 13 January 2005 was executed between the parties to such effect. The supplementary agreement also provided for the CA to continue to apply once the new hotel was opened. The respondent later began a recruitment exercise and entered into contracts of employment with the employees on fresh terms. The respondent opened its new hotel on 28 September 2006. The appellant disagreed with the action of the respondent. The respondent applied to the Industrial Court for the interpretation of the supplementary agreement. The Industrial Court held that the supplementary agreement did not give the respondent power to impose unilaterally new terms of employment upon the employees and the terms of the CA would continue to apply as the CA was reenforced on the opening of the new hotel. The respondent applied to the High Court for judicial review, which quashed the award of the Industrial Court. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the decision of National Union Of Hotel, Bar And Restaurant the High Court. The appellant obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court on the following question: whether a CA or terms and conditions of employment could be unilaterally imposed by an employer on a union without going through the collective bargaining process provided for in the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ('IRA').