LIDL Ltd, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee & Anor [2016] EWHC 2040 (Admin) (10 August 2016)

LIDL Ltd, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee & Anor [2016] EWHC 2040 (Admin) (10 August 2016)

The CAC did not misinterpret the statutory provisions regarding small fragmented bargaining units, gave adequate reasons for its decision including consideration of double segmentation, and did not fail to have regard to material considerations; therefore, the claim for judicial review is dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2040 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: LIDL LIMITED; Defendant: CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE; Interested Party: GMB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Judicial Review, Appropriate Bargaining Unit, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Judicial Review Appropriate Bargaining Unit Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIDL LIMITED

Claimant

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

Defendant

GMB

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CAC misconstrued 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 failed to give adequate reasons for its decision, particularly regarding double segmentation by job description and location.
  3. 3 Whether the CAC failed to have regard to material considerations, specifically a previous CAC decision and a dictionary definition.

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC did not misinterpret the statutory provisions regarding small fragmented bargaining units, gave adequate reasons for its decision including consideration of double segmentation, and did not fail to have regard to material considerations; therefore, the claim for judicial review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted
  • Claim for judicial review dismissed