| Summary |
COSTS - Dispute answered in favour of respondent - Two investigation meetings held - First investigation meeting one day in length - Length of second investigation meeting not specified - Respondent sought $5,189 contribution to total costs of $15,568 - Respondent claimed entitled to greater than usual costs because of changes to nature of applicant’s claim and applicant’s failure to provide submissions within timeframe - Applicant claimed costs should lie where they fall - Claimed was genuine ambiguity in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) and costs should not be awarded against party testing ambiguity in Authority - Claimed main issue for determination raised at first investigation meeting - Claimed respondent responsible for complicating matters and leading unnecessary evidence at second investigation meeting - Applicant noted most of costs incurred after first meeting when issues did not change - Alternatively, claimed costs award should be between $1,500 and $2,500 - Respondent claimed original claims much wider than dispute, evidence required to negate other claims, parties had operated over many years with understanding of CEA consistent with Authority’s determination, and many of matters could have been resolved by way of settlement under new CEA then being negotiated - Authority found while matter resolved as genuine dispute not raised that way - Found number of other claims made, although were withdrawn prior to second investigation meeting - Authority found given changing nature of claims not appropriate for costs to lie where they fall - However, found as matter resolved as dispute and issues relatively clear to respondent costs should be modest - Applicant to pay respondent $2,000 contribution to costs |