This week’s case roundup
Central Arbitration Committeedecision upheld
R v Central Arbitration Committee ex parte Kwik-Fit, unreported, March
2002 Court of Appeal
Kwik-Fit had a number of outlets in the London area. After it refused to
recognise the TGWU, the union applied for statutory recognition to the Central
Arbitration Committee for statutory recognition.
The CAC then had to determine the appropriate bargaining unit. The TGWU
wanted the bargaining unit to be limited to the London outlets where it had
significant support. However, Kwik-Fit wanted to include all of its regions
which would have reduced the TGWU’s overall support. The CAC accepted the
TGWU’s proposed bargaining unit.
Kwik-Fit brought a successful High Court application for judicial review and
the judge held the CAC had failed to carry out a comparative exercise to
determine the most appropriate bargaining unit.
The CAC successfully appealed. In a ruling which has implications for
multi-site operations, the Court of Appeal held the CAC had determined the
appropriate bargaining unit in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.
It was not obliged to weigh up conflicting bargaining units put forward by the
parties but had a duty to consider whether the bargaining unit put forward by the
TGWU was appropriate. If it was, there was no need for the CAC to consider
whether any other bargaining unit was preferable.
Anxiety constitutes mental impairment
Stoll (UK) Limited v Mitcham 2002 All ER (D) 120 EAT
Mitcham commenced employment in 1969 and in 1985 was promoted to training
manager. Following the appointment of a new managing director in 1996, Mitcham
developed migraines and suffered from anxiety. His condition steadily worsened,
he was prescribed anti-depressants and he became unable to work.
After returning to work in October 2001, he was made redundant and brought a
tribunal claim. The medical evidence found the managing director’s behaviour
had caused Mitcham loss of confidence and deep-seated anxiety.
The tribunal concluded that this constituted a mental impairment, namely
neurotic depression. Mitcham’s symptoms were likely to have been worse had he
not taken the anti-depressants and the tribunal held he was disabled within the
meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Stoll appealed. The EAT held the tribunal’s decision was not perverse and
the conclusion it reached was not impermissible on the evidence which had been
adduced.
Comments are closed.