words their ordinary meaning.’ ” Anderson v. State, 801 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2011) (quoting State v. Hearn, 797 N.W.2d 577, 583 (Iowa 2011)). We have not previously defined the term “good faith” as used in section 22.8(4), but we have addressed the meaning of that term in various other Iowa statutes that provide immunity or allow attorney-fee awards. We surveyed such decisions in Sieg Co. v. Kelly, 568 N.W.2d 794, 804-05 (Iowa 1997). There, we noted that, whether “good faith” in a particular statute is viewed objectively or subjectively depends on the context and other terms with which it is used: The term “good faith” has various meanings; sometimes it is viewed objectively and at other times, subjectively. Compare Aalbers v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 431 N.W.2d 330, 335-36 (Iowa 1988) (<HOLDING>), with Garvis v. Scholten, 492 N.W.2d 402, 404
holding that unemployment compensation should not be deducted from a back pay award under the national labor relations act because failing to deduct unemployment payments does not make the employee more than whole holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments holding  1001 prosecution for false statements in unemployment benefits not precluded by unemployment benefits statute specifically addressing topic holding goodfaith belief measured by objective test in unemployment compensation context holding that legislature clearly intended that workers compensation act and unemployment security act be construed together thus prohibiting worker from receiving both unemployment compensation and workers compensation payments for same period