| Summary |
DISPUTE - Applicants alleged respondent failed to pay shoe allowance under collective employment agreement - Respondent required applicants to wear closed footwear" - Whether "closed footwear" constituted an example of "a particular type of shoe" as relevant clause of collective agreement required - Authority had issued interim determination with provisional conclusion that applicants' claim failed -Parties made further submissions - Applicants alleged interim determination construed meaning of relevant clause too narrowly - Alleged intention was to provide for circumstances where workers would receive some reimbursement in event that their employer sought to restrict, in some way, footwear that they might otherwise reasonably wear to work - Ordinary dictionary definition of word "shoe" seemed to contemplate item which was particular kind of footwear - If parties had meant to use "footwear" in relevant clause it was available to them to do so - Authority's task was to discern ordinary meaning of relevant clause as it was written, not to attempt to guess parties' intentions when clause negotiated - Applicants' application failed" |