翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Adams (1957) ・ R v Adams (South Africa) ・ R v Albert ・ R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ・ R (complexity) ・ R (cross section ratio) ・ R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ・ R (disambiguation) ・ R (E) v Governing Body of JFS ・ R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport ・ R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport ・ R (film) ・ R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis ・ R (Green Environmental Industries Ltd) v Hertfordshire CC ・ R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport ・ R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee ・ R (L) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis ・ R (Los Angeles Railway) ・ R (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee ・ R (New York City Subway service) ・ R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice ・ R (on the application of SG and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ・ R (Playfoot) v Millais School Governing Body ・ R (programming language) ・ R (ProLife Alliance) v BBC ・ R (R. Kelly album) ・ R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ・ R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council ・ R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills ・ R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee ： ウィキペディア英語版 R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee ''R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee'' () (EWCA Civ 512 ) is an UK labour law case, concerning collective bargaining and the statutory recognition procedure of TULRCA 1992 Schedule A1. ==Facts== The CAC appealed from a High Court decision that it had drawn the size of the bargaining unit incorrectly. The Transport and General Workers Union argued that the bargaining unit should be two separate units in London, under TULRCA 1992 Schedule A1 para 11(2), that the CAC should determine ‘whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate or some other bargaining unit is appropriate’. Kwik Fit argued that the bargaining unit should be company wide. Kwik Fit complained under Schedule A1 para 19B that the bargaining unit, if confined to the M25, would make management difficult. The CAC, chaired by a non-lawyer, decided that the bargaining unit was workplaces within the M25. The High Court quashed the CAC decision.〔() EWHC 277〕 The CAC appealed. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.