The Court dismissed the Appeal brought on behalf of CAL. This is the key extract

3. A finding of successorship is not automatic but falls to be decided by the IC, as guided by good conscience and the principles of good industrial relations. Over the years, however, the IC, still guided by good conscience and the principles of good industrial relations, has established a test for the determination of whether or not the new employer should be regarded as the successor of the old. This test has come to be known as the three substantials test, meaning that the new employer carries on substantially the same operation as the former employer, in substantially the same way with substantially the same employees. This test was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Eastern Commercial Lands Ltd. v Banking Insurance and General Workers Union. (Civil Appeal 78 of 2009)

4. In Eastern, the Court of Appeal also addressed many questions which arise when a Court is required to decide whether there should be a finding of successorship. For this reason it will be found that Eastern is frequently cited in the course of this Judgment. We have relied on Eastern in considering whether a finding of successorship is precluded by either the payment of severance benefits to the workers in question or by the expiration of a registered collective agreement.

5. We have also relied on Eastern in considering the consequences which flow from a finding of successorship and whether it was appropriate for the IC to order that the successor company be bound by Certificates of Recognition in favour of the RMU.

6. Having heard the arguments of Senior Counsel for CAL and for the Union respectively, we accepted the observation of both Senior Counsel that the expired collective agreement was deemed to continue only in respect of portions concerned with the avoiding and settlement of disputes as contemplated by section 48(2) of the IRA. Having regard to this observation, we are of the view that the first order of the IC ought to be varied to reflect the provision of section 48(2). We otherwise hold that the IC had not made any error of law so as to invest the Court of Appeal with the jurisdiction contemplated by section 18(2) of the IRA. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.