R (Cable & Wireless Services UK Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee & Anor [2008] EWHC 115 (Admin) (04 February 2008)

R (Cable & Wireless Services UK Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee & Anor [2008] EWHC 115 (Admin) (04 February 2008)

The CAC did not err in law or act irrationally in its interpretation and application of Paragraph 19B(3)(c); it properly considered the risk of fragmentation, the size and identity of the proposed unit, and was entitled to conclude that the unit was not fragmented and would not lead to undesirable proliferation of bargaining units.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 115 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Cable & Wireless Services U.K. Limited; Defendant: Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: The Communication Workers Union
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Judicial Review, Appropriate Bargaining Unit, Interpretation of Statute
Employment Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Judicial Review Appropriate Bargaining Unit Interpretation of Statute

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cable & Wireless Services U.K. Limited

Claimant

Central Arbitration Committee

Defendant

The Communication Workers Union

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Central Arbitration Committee misapplied Paragraph 19B(3)(c) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding 'small fragmented bargaining units'
  2. 2 Whether the CAC's decision was irrational or involved an error of law

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC did not err in law or act irrationally in its interpretation and application of Paragraph 19B(3)(c); it properly considered the risk of fragmentation, the size and identity of the proposed unit, and was entitled to conclude that the unit was not fragmented and would not lead to undesirable proliferation of bargaining units.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed