R (Ultraframe (UK) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 560 |
| Date | 22 April 2005 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Sir Martin Nourse
Trade unions - power to order fresh secret postal ballot on union recognition
The Central Arbitration Committee had jurisdiction to order the re-run of a secret postal ballot where two trade unions had sought recognition to be entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit.
The Court of Appeal so held in allowing the appeal of the Central Arbitration Committee from a decision of Mr Justice Davis (The Times April 12, 2005) who had held in judicial review proceedings that the committee did not have jurisdiction under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, to go behind the result of a ballot, as delivered to it by a qualified independent person, and to order a further ballot, and further that its decision, that the relevant employees had not had a sufficient opportunity to vote, was irrational.
Two trade unions, the GMB and the United Road Transport Union, sought recognition to be entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers employed by Ultraframe (UK) Ltd, the respondent. In due course, a secret ballot was held, which revealed that a majority of those voting supported recognition.
It was a requirement of paragraph 29 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act that there had to be approval of 40 per cent of the relevant employees.
The result of the ballot, as notified to the committee by the qualified independent person, was that the necessary percentage was not achieved by four votes.
The unions concerned raised complaints saying that a number of employees had not received ballot papers. The matter was referred to the panel of the committee, which decided that the ballot should be re-run.
In the judicial review proceedings, Ultraframe contended that the committee had had no jurisdiction to go behind the result of the ballot as delivered by the qualified independent person, stating that its only power at that stage was to make the declaration of non-entitlement to recognition set out in paragraph 29(4) of Schedule A1.
It also contended that the decision as to receipt of the ballot papers was irrational. The judge accepted both contentions.
The committee appealed both findings. The GMB, while not appearing, supported the appeal. Before the hearing of the appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Triodos Bank NV v Dobbs (No 2)
...appeal on April 15, 2005 after refusing the defendant's application to stay the hearing of his case since he did not have legal aid (The Times May 11, 2005). Mr Dobbs in person; Mr Neil Levy for the bank.LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE said that an agreement which truly replaced the original loan agr......
-
In pursuit of reconstructing Iraq: does self-determination matter?
...Takes A Big Lead in the Iraq Vote, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 4, 2005, at A1. (143.) Iraq Legislators Set Up Panel to Draft a Consitution, N.Y. TIMES, May 11, 2005, at A9; U.S. Presses Iraqi Government To Broaden the Role of Sunnis, N.Y. TIMES, May 13, 2005, at (144.) Tyler & Oppel, supra note 14......
-
Statutory union recognition in the UK: a work in progress
...(UK) Ltd] v Central Arbitration Committee (2005) EWHC 112; R [onthe application of Ultraframe (UK) Ltd] v Central Arbitration Committee (2005) ICR 1194; R (on theapplication of British Broadcasting Corporation) v Central Arbitration Committee and another (2003)EWHC 1375; R (on the applicati......