R v CAC ex p BTP Tioxide Ltd [1981] ICR 843
Judgement for the case R v CAC ex p BTP Tioxide Ltd
Table Of Contents
Union U had entered into a limited bargaining agreement with Plaintiff.
U requested info regarding the job evaluation process, which was not covered in the agreement between Plaintiff and U. Plaintiff refused.
-
High court held that Plaintiff didn’t have to disclose because the info wasn’t to be used to enable U to carry out a representational function (as it couldn’t make representations on this subject under the agreement.
The legislation (s.181- above) restricted itself to “matters in respect of which the union was recognised”.
For Further Study on R v CAC ex p BTP Tioxide Ltd
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Labour Law | Employee Duties Notes (26 pages) |
| Labour Law | Freedom Of Association Notes (23 pages) |
| Labour Law | Representation At Work Notes (16 pages) |
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.