The Corporation of Hamilton has been awarded legal costs following victory in a dispute with municipality management over their right to join a collective bargaining agreement.

In April, Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman ruled that the managers could not sign up to the same CBA as non-management staff because “management employees owe a duty of loyalty to their employer in the sense that they are obligated to carry out their various job functions in a professional way” — although he did point out they may form their own collective bargaining unit. Despite that ruling, attorney Saul Froomkin, representing four Corporation managers including Chief Operating Officer Ed Benevides, argued that no costs should be awarded to either the Corporation or the Attorney General, the other defendant named in the action.

Mr Froomkin pointed out that labour dispute tribunals rarely ordered costs because it may discourage plaintiffs from pursuing cases peacefully through the courts.

In his ruling, delivered yesterday, Mr Justice Hellman said he was “initially attracted to this line of argument” before adding that “upon reflection I find it less persuasive”.

“The decision to refer a labour dispute to a tribunal rests with the Minister, not the parties,” he said.

“In any case, the court is not a tribunal. If the successful party was unlikely to recover its costs, that too might discourage parties to industrial disputes from litigating their differences.

“Moreover, the prospect of an order for costs should a party prove unsuccessful is an incentive for a party to consider carefully the merits of its case before going to court.

“In short, I am not persuaded that the chain of circumstances leading to these proceedings justifies an approach to costs that is any different from that applicable in any other piece of litigation.”

Mr Justice Hellman noted that the Attorney General accepted that the department should not be awarded costs, but the Corporation had submitted that it was entitled to recover its legal expenses.

“I find that there is no good reason why I should depart from the general rule, and accordingly I order that the plaintiffs should pay the second defendant’s costs on a standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed.”