Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee
Open-knowledge reference entry
Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee [2001] Scot CS 168 is a UK labour law case, concerning collective bargaining.
Facts
Fullarton was challenging a Central Arbitration Committee decision for recognition of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. Fullarton had announced redundancies in October and November 2000 after an application from the ISTC for recognition. In December 2000 the ISTC applied to the Central Arbitration Committee for recognition in respect of a bargaining unit under Schedule A1 paragraph 22. CAC made a panel with a case manager, but no agreement was reached by February 2001 so the CAC decided the bargaining unit was at the relevant plant as the union proposed. Comparing the manager and the union lists, the case manager decided 49.3% of people at work were union members. The union requested reconsideration, and then it was 51.3%, so the CAC decided a ballot would not be held. Fullarton argued the case manager’s decision was ultra vires, because the CAC ought to take the decision, that it was unfair anyway because 15 new members were found and Fullarton had no way of seeing how the conclusion was reached, that even then the decision was irrational because paragraph 22(4) conditions were not given proper weight, nor was the marginal nature of the decision.
Judgment
Lord Johnston in the Court of Session, Outer House, dismissed the petition, and said that although he probably would have ordered for a ballot to be taken, the decision to not have a ballot was rational. Delegating to the case manager was legitimate.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Fullarton, Computer and Industries, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 8, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q19585671. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2001 and 2000.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee primary sources, Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee archive and Fullarton research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.