R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee

Under Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Central Arbitration Committee must begin with the bargaining unit proposed in the union’s recognition request. It must decide whether that unit is appropriate after considering all mandatory statutory matters, including effective management and the employer’s views.

“Appropriate” means suitable for collective bargaining. It does not mean optimal, best or more appropriate than every alternative. An employer’s alternative may reveal why the union’s proposal is inappropriate, but the Committee need not compare competing proposals on equal terms. Once it properly finds the union’s proposed unit appropriate, its inquiry ends.

The Transport and General Workers’ Union sought statutory recognition for employees in two London divisions of Kwik-Fit. The Central Arbitration Committee determined that the proposed London bargaining unit was appropriate under Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Kwik-Fit successfully challenged that determination in the Administrative Court. Elias J concluded that the Committee had wrongly formulated its statutory task and directed reconsideration. The Committee appealed.

The central issue was whether the Committee had to compare the union’s proposal with the employer’s proposed national unit, or could stop once it found the union’s unit appropriate after considering the statutory factors and the employer’s objections.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Buxton LJ delivered the leading judgment. Latham LJ and Sir Denis Henry agreed. The Committee’s determination accorded with Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and Elias J’s decision was reversed.

2. The statutory process begins with the union’s request and the bargaining unit identified in it. Under Paragraph 11(2)(a), the Committee must first decide whether that proposed unit is appropriate. It may determine that another unit is appropriate if the union’s proposal fails that test.

3. The word “appropriate” requires suitability for collective bargaining. It does not require the Committee to identify an optimum unit or choose the most appropriate of several suitable units. A comparative obligation would add a requirement which the statutory language neither states nor supports. Once the Committee properly concludes that the union’s proposed unit is appropriate, its inquiry should end.

4. The union’s proposal receives procedural priority, but not immunity from scrutiny. In applying Paragraphs 19(2)–(4), the Committee must consider all prescribed matters. These include compatibility with effective management, the employer’s views, existing bargaining arrangements, the avoidance of small fragmented units, the character of relevant workers and their location. An employer’s alternative proposal may test whether the union’s unit is appropriate or provide a substitute if it is not. The Committee need not consider the competing units pari passu.

5. The Committee had considered the employer’s contention that only a national unit reflected the company’s centralised management. It rationally concluded that those objections did not make the London unit inappropriate and that collective bargaining there could coexist with effective management. It had therefore fulfilled its statutory duty.

6. More generally, the Committee is a specialist statutory decision-maker in an area unsuitable for routine judicial intervention. Its decisions are reviewable where it acts irrationally or makes an error of law. The irrationality challenge had been rejected and was not renewed.

1. Court of Appeal: The Central Arbitration Committee’s appeal was allowed unanimously. The court reversed the Administrative Court’s decision and upheld the Committee’s determination that the union’s proposed London bargaining unit was appropriate.

2. Administrative Court: Elias J held that the Committee had wrongly formulated its statutory task and that the matter should be remitted because he could not be certain it would reach the same conclusion under the test he considered correct. No neutral citation is stated.

3. Central Arbitration Committee: The Committee determined that the two London divisions proposed by the union constituted the appropriate bargaining unit.