Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

UltraFrame (UK) Ltd

[2005] ICR 1194

Case summary last updated at 18/02/2020 20:49 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case UltraFrame (UK) Ltd

CAC directed a ballot to determine whether or not a sufficient proportion of the bargaining group supported collective negotiation by Ps (two unions). There were 4 votes too few to find that there was such support, but it directed a rerun on the grounds that 5 members who would have voted in favour were not given a reasonable opportunity to vote. The company, D, sought JR of the decision to rerun the ballot, on the grounds that CAC was given no such power to do so. CA rejected the challenge, holding that although CAC had no power to interpret the ballot under para 29, it did have a supervisory role in assessing the validity of the ballot and to order a rerun where the statutory standards had not been met. 
 
Buxton LJ: He supports dictum from Kwikfit that “the Central Arbitration Committee was intended by Parliament to be a decision making body in a specialist area that is not suitable for the intervention of the courts”, though obviously CAC still had to act within the scope of powers conferred on it. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Labour Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Labour Law Notes

Labour Law Notes >>