{"issue_text":"Whether the NEC Appeals Board erred in finding there were two valid pension certificates with different retirement dates","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Two pension certificates issued with different dates"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the NEC Appeals Board erred in determining the respondent's retirement date based on inconveniences suffered","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Ambiguity in pension schemes, respondent not informed of change"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the occupational pension schemes were ambiguous and whether this justified retirement at 65","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"One scheme provided for retirement at 65, ambiguity found"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the NEC Appeals Board erred in directing retirement in terms of Statutory Instrument 170/2012","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Application of S.I. 170/2012 to resolve ambiguity"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondent was employed by the appellant and was initially advised he would retire at age 65, but later told he would retire at age 60. When he queried this change, he was told his retirement age was 60. He raised a grievance, and a hearing ruled his retirement age be 60. He appealed to the NEC Appeals Board, which reversed the decision and ruled his retirement age is 65. The appellant appealed this decision to the Labour Court.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases