The respondent brought an action for wrongful dismissal against a union local and its directors.
The union pleaded that section 3(2) of the Rights of Labour Act precluded it from being named as a party.
After the limitation period expired, the union moved to dismiss the action on this ground.
The motion was dismissed.
The respondent then successfully moved for a representation order allowing individual defendants to defend on behalf of union members.
The appeal addressed whether an action improperly naming a union could be amended after the limitation period expired by obtaining a representation order.
The majority held that the action was not a nullity and that the representation order could be granted as a correction of the party's name under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The dissent argued that section 3(2) created an absolute statutory requirement for a representation order and that the majority's approach created unacceptable uncertainty in the law.
