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
The Parties:
GMB &
URTU
and
Ultraframe
(UK) Ltd
Introduction
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 Unions’ 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
The Ballot
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 Court’s judgment, dated 4
February 2005, stated that the CAC’s 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 Court’s 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.
Declaration
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.
Paul Davies
Derek Hodgson
John Rugman
23 May 2005