Ultraframe (UK) Ltd., R (on the application of) v GMB & Ors

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd., R (on the application of) v GMB & Ors

The CAC had no jurisdiction under Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to order a re-run of the ballot after being informed of the result by the QIP; the statute mandates that the CAC must make a declaration based on the result as soon as reasonably practicable, and does not confer a general supervisory power to the CAC over the conduct of the ballot. Any remedy for alleged irregularity lies with the courts, not the CAC.

Parties
Claimant: Ultraframe (UK) Limited; Defendant: Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: GMB; Interested Party: URTU; Interested Party: Anne Hock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision of the CAC quashed
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Statutory Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Statutory Bodies, Ballot Procedures
Labour Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Statutory Interpretation Jurisdiction of Statutory Bodies Ballot Procedures

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ultraframe (UK) Limited

Claimant

Central Arbitration Committee

Defendant

GMB

Interested Party

URTU

Interested Party

Anne Hock

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) had jurisdiction to order a re-run of a statutory recognition ballot under Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of natural justice in the CAC's procedure
  3. 3 Whether the CAC's decision was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC had no jurisdiction under Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to order a re-run of the ballot after being informed of the result by the QIP; the statute mandates that the CAC must make a declaration based on the result as soon as reasonably practicable, and does not confer a general supervisory power to the CAC over the conduct of the ballot. Any remedy for alleged irregularity lies with the courts, not the CAC.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision of the CAC quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Central Arbitration Committee to order a re-run of the ballot is quashed as made without jurisdiction.
  • The CAC is required to make a declaration of non-recognition under paragraph 29 of Schedule A1.