In proceedings between the applicant union and respondent employer, the respondent sought leave to be represented by counsel at the hearing relating to the matter. The applicant union objected to this representation.

The applicant opposed the respondent’s request for legal representation on the grounds that there was no serious issue of law to be argued and contended that the only issue was whether the Arbitrator should modify, nullify, or vary the respondent’s decision to cease payment to the union’s member while the member was unfit for work. The respondent asserted that the applicant’s claim contravenes a “no further claims” clause and that the Arbitrator does not have power to grant the relief sought by the applicant.

The Arbitrator found that the respondent’s submissions raise substantial questions of law, particularly regarding the “no further claims” clause and the Arbitrator’s powers under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, and accordingly granted leave for the respondent to be represented by a legal practitioner.

The decision can be read here.