Ultraframe (UK) Ltd., R (on the application of) v GMB & Ors [2005] EWHC 112 (Admin) (04 February 2005)

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd., R (on the application of) v GMB & Ors [2005] EWHC 112 (Admin) (04 February 2005)

The CAC did not have jurisdiction under Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to order a re-run of the recognition ballot after being informed of the result by the QIP; the statutory scheme mandates that the CAC must act on the result as soon as reasonably practicable, and does not confer a general supervisory power to review or re-run ballots except where expressly provided.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 112 (Admin)
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 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision of the CAC quashed
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Statutory Interpretation, Ballot Supervision, Judicial Review of Administrative Bodies
Employment Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Statutory Interpretation Ballot Supervision Judicial Review of Administrative Bodies

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 / High Court 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 the CAC breached natural justice by not raising its reasoning with the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the CAC's decision to order a re-run was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC did not have jurisdiction under Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to order a re-run of the recognition ballot after being informed of the result by the QIP; the statutory scheme mandates that the CAC must act on the result as soon as reasonably practicable, and does not confer a general supervisory power to review or re-run ballots except where expressly provided.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision of the CAC quashed

Orders

  • The CAC's decision to order a re-run of the ballot is quashed.
  • No declaration of recognition or non-recognition is made by the court; the matter is remitted for further consideration consistent with the judgment.