Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION : Australian Services Union, New South Wales Branch v Sydney Water Corporation [2001] NSWIRComm 100 APPELLANT: Australian Services Union, New South Wales Branch PARTIES : RESPONDENT: Sydney Water Corporation FILE NUMBER: IRC 6025 of 2000 CORAM: Wright J President; Walton J Vice-President; Connor C CATCHWORDS : Leave to appeal - Appeal from decision of Deputy President dismissing s84 application - Issue now "moot" because employer accepted recommendation of the Commission - Employee now retired on basis of voluntary redundancy - Leave to appeal refused - Limitations of Full Bench decision LEGISLATION CITED : Industrial Relations Act 1996 s84 CASES CITED : Australian Services Union on behalf of Haywood and Sydney Water Corporation [2000] NSWIRComm 232 HEARING DATES: 05/08/2001 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 05/08/2001 APPELLANT: Mr J Shaw QC and Mr A Searle of Counsel SOLICITOR: Mr C Plummer Walker Kissane & Plummer LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr R M Goot SC SOLICITOR: Mr A Cunningham Minter Ellison JUDGMENT: - 2 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES FULL BENCH CORAM: WRIGHT J President WALTON J Vice-President CONNOR C TUESDAY 8 MAY 2001 MATTER No IRC 6025 of 2000 AUSTRALIAN SERVICES UNION, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH AND THE SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION DECISION OF THE COMMISSION (extempore) [2001] NSWIRComm 100 1 This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Sams DP given on 20 November 2000 in which the Deputy President dismissed an application of the Australian Services Union, New South Wales on behalf of its member, Colin Haywood, under s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (see Australian Services Union on behalf of Haywood and Sydney Water Corporation [2000] NSWIRComm 232). 2 On 28 March 2001 the Industrial Registrar wrote to the parties in the following terms: I have been requested by the Full Bench of the Commission to write to you in light of their review of submissions filed in this matter to date. The Full Bench has formed the view that, subject to one important qualification, both the issue of leave and the substantive appeal should be dealt with at the hearing of this matter on 17 May, 2001. The qualification relates to paragraph 14 of the respondent's submissions, which indicates that since the decision of Sams DP the issue has now become essentially academic because the employer accepted the Deputy President's recommendation and Mr Haywood has now retired on the basis of an offer of voluntary redundancy. Given this circumstance, the Full Bench proposes to set the matter down for a short hearing prior to 17 May (approximately 45 minutes) on a date mutually convenient to all parties. ... 3 We have today heard submissions from Mr Shaw QC for the appellant and Mr Goot SC for the respondent in accordance with the terms of that letter. We have concluded that leave to appeal should be refused and the appeal dismissed because the appeal is now moot. 4 However, in coming to this conclusion, we would not wish to be taken as having determined the question as to the operation of, or interrelationship between, the respective policies of Sydney Water as to 'no forced redundancy' and 'medical retirement'. Specifically, we make no finding as to whether the Deputy President was correct in concluding that Sydney Water was not attempting to avoid the 'no forced redundancy' policy (see paras [90] - [100] of the decision) or had correctly applied that policy in this case. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.