Boots Management Services Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v The Central Arbitration Committee

Boots Management Services Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v The Central Arbitration Committee

The CAC was not entitled to read words into paragraph 35 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act to limit the definition of collective bargaining to pay, hours, and holidays, as this would contradict the express legislative scheme. The statutory bar in paragraph 35 applies even if the recognised collective agreement covers only limited topics. Any incompatibility with Article 11 ECHR cannot be remedied by judicial interpretation but may require a declaration of incompatibility, which was not sought or notified to the Crown in this case.

Parties
Claimant: Boots Management Services Ltd; Defendant: The Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: The Pharmacists’ Defence Association Union
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
No final order; directions given for further steps regarding possible declaration of incompatibility.
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Interpretation of Statutes, Article 11 ECHR, Judicial Review Procedure
Labour Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Interpretation of Statutes Article 11 ECHR Judicial Review Procedure

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boots Management Services Ltd

Claimant

The Central Arbitration Committee

Defendant

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association Union

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Central Arbitration Committee's interpretation of paragraph 35 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is compatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the agreement between Boots and the BPA constitutes a collective agreement barring the PDAU's statutory recognition application
  3. 3 Whether the CAC was entitled to read words into paragraph 35 to ensure compatibility with Article 11 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC was not entitled to read words into paragraph 35 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act to limit the definition of collective bargaining to pay, hours, and holidays, as this would contradict the express legislative scheme. The statutory bar in paragraph 35 applies even if the recognised collective agreement covers only limited topics. Any incompatibility with Article 11 ECHR cannot be remedied by judicial interpretation but may require a declaration of incompatibility, which was not sought or notified to the Crown in this case.

Court Disposition

No final order; directions given for further steps regarding possible declaration of incompatibility.

Orders

  • The PDAU is to notify the Administrative Court Office within 21 days of the judgment whether it seeks a declaration of incompatibility.
  • No final order on the claim until further notification and possible hearing.