UltraFrame (UK) Ltd [2005] ICR 1194

• CAC directed a ballot to determine whether or not a sufficient proportion of the bargaining group supported collective negotiation by Plaintiffs (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, Defendant, 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 paragraph 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 Kwik fit 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. 

RELATED CASES

• Kwik Fit