Case Number: TUR1/313/(2003)
23 May 2005
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED
GMB & URTU
Ultraframe (UK) Ltd
1.†††††††† The GMB and URTU (the Unions) submitted an application to the CAC dated 14 October 2003 that they should be recognised for collective bargaining by Ultraframe (UK) Ltd (the Company).
2.†††††††† In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the application consisting of Professor Paul Davies, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr D Hodgson and Mr J Rugman.
3.†††††††† By a decision dated 18 November 2003, the Unionsí application was accepted and in a decision dated 12 January 2004 the Panel determined the appropriate bargaining unit.† As it was a different bargaining unit from that proposed by the Unions, the Panel issued a further decision, dated 16 February 2004, that the application was valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule.† By a decision dated 27 February 2004 the Panel notified the parties that there was to be a postal ballot and Popularis Ltd (as the Qualified Independent Person, QIP) was appointed on 29 March 2004 to conduct the ballot with a closing date of 28 April 2004
4.†††††††† The QIP reported to the CAC that, of the 409 workers in the bargaining unit, 297 (72.6%) had voted in the ballot.† 160 workers (53.9% of those voting) voted to support the proposal that the Unions should be recognised by the Company and 137 (46.1% of those voting) voted to reject the proposal.† The proportion of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 39.1%.
5.†††††††† The GMB then made a complaint to the CAC that some workers in the bargaining unit had not received ballot papers and had therefore been unable to vote.† The complaint was considered by the Panel at a hearing on 11 June 2004 and a decision was issued on 29 June 2004 that the ballot should be re-run.
6.†††††††† The Company submitted an application for judicial review of that decision.† The Administrative Courtís judgment, dated 4 February 2005, stated that the CACís decision of 29 June 2004 was quashed and the CAC was ordered to issue a declaration that the Unions were not entitled to be recognised by the Company.
7.†††††††† An appeal was submitted against the Administrative Courtís judgment.† The judgment of the Court of Appeal was issued on 22 April 2005 and was to uphold the order of the Administrative Court except for an amendment to state that the CAC did have jurisdiction to order a further ballot.† The CAC is accordingly required to issue a declaration that the Unions are not entitled to be recognised by the Company.
8.†††††††† The ballot established that a majority of the workers voting supported the proposal that the Unions should be recognised by the Company for the purposes of collective bargaining within the bargaining unit but did not establish that the proposal was supported by 40% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit.†
9.†††††††† The CAC accordingly declares, in accordance with paragraph 29(4) of the Schedule to the Act, that the Unions are not entitled to be recognised by the Company as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
23 May 2005