Case Number TURl/33/00

 

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE Al - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

ISTC

 

and

 

Hygena Limited (Scunthorpe)

 

 

Introduction

 

1:         ISTC (The Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 19 December 2000 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Hygena Ltd (Scunthorpe Division (The Company) for all manual shop floor workers excluding those holding the position of supervisor and above and clerical staff.

 

2:         In accordance with section 262 of the 1992 Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Frank Burchill as Deputy Chairman and as members, Mr David Bower and Mr Paul Gates. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Patricia Bax.

 

3:         By a decision dated 15 January 2001, the Panel accepted the Union's application but the Parties were unable to reach an agreement on the bargaining unit. It was, therefore, necessary for the Panel to hold a hearing on 5 March 2001 to determine this issue and prior to that, both parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

 

 

Summary of the Union's Case

 

4:         The Union's proposed bargaining unit consisted of all manual staff at the Hygena plant at Scunthorpe excluding those in grades of supervisor and above and clerical workers.

 

5:         The Union stated that it is common practice to have bargaining units consisting of shop floor workers and to have separate arrangements for workplaces that, whilst being part of a larger group, due to their location and type of work constitute separate bargaining units. In its submissions, that Union stated that employees at the Company believed this to be true of the Scunthorpe site. There was evidence that the Company treated these sites differently and that some shop floor hourly paid workers had different contracts of employment from salaried staff and that there are some differences in terms and conditions and working practices across the sites.

 

6:         At the hearing, the Union referred to different cultures existing at the different sites based on historical differences mainly in the production of distinctive brand products.

 

7:         The Company had a Works Council which had separate representation for the shop floor hourly paid workers. In the opinion of the Union, this clearly identified them as a separate group.

 

8:         According to the Union, the supervisors were distinguished from the manual workers because they had a first line managerial role. They were the first line of management in both the disciplinary and grievance procedures.

 

9:         The Union argued that the proposed bargaining unit would not constitute a small fragmented bargaining unit as it consisted of all the manual workers at Scunthorpe and Scunthorpe is a distinct site.

 

10:       The Union considered that their proposed bargaining unit was compatible with effective management. It reflected the current management practices and would enhance industrial relations by encouraging fair and efficient practices based on proper representation.

 

 

Summary of Company Case

 

11:       The Company argued that the Union's proposed bargaining unit would not be compatible with effective management. It would create a degree of inflexibility which was not compatible with the demands of competition.

 

12:       The Company produced evidence to show that all the staff in the Company's proposed bargaining unit, across all sites, were covered by the same terms and conditions of employment.

 

13:       The above reflected the need to be able to move product manufacture and personnel across sites to meet market changes.

 

14:       It was pointed out by the Company that the supervisors were working chargehands with no responsibility whatsoever for dealing with discipline or grievance issues.

 

15:       Following from all the arguments presented by the Company, they stated that the appropriate bargaining unit should consist of the whole of the manufacturing group of 2134 manual workers plus 84 supervisors across all six sites. This is an established group of employees currently managed as one unit.

 

 

Considerations

 

16:       Para. 19(3)(a) and (b)of the Schedule requires the Panel to decide the appropriate bargaining unit and in making that decision to take in to account the need for the bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management and so far as is consistent with this need, the factors listed in para. 19(4) of the Schedule. The Panel's decision has been taken after full and detailed consideration of the parties' written and oral submissions.

 

17:       The Company's evidence on consistent pay, hours and holiday entitlements currently being applied across all its sites in respect of the employees referred to in the Company's proposed appropriate bargaining unit was convincing and was not seriously challenged by the Union. This was equally true of its evidence on the existence of flexibility across sites and the absolute need to maintain this in the light of the competition faced by the Company.

 

18:       It was the Panel's view that acceptance of the Union's proposed appropriate bargaining unit could lead to differences at the Scunthorpe plant in entitlements referred to above and this would undermine the flexibility referred to by the Company. Although not necessarily an automatic consequence of the implementation of such a proposal, the emergence of such differences would be highly likely and as such not compatible with effective management in the circumstances.

 

19:       The Panel's view of what would constitute an appropriate bargaining unit was further influenced by consideration of the factors listed in para. 19(4) of the Schedule. Recognition of one union at one plant could open up the possibility of fragmented bargaining units across the Company. It was agreed by the parties that at least one union, other than ISTC, had members, in the relevant group, in at least one other plant.

 

20:       All of the Company's employees in the relevant category were located in the North of England. Whatever historical or other circumstances suggested differences in culture or attitude of workers in different plants, the characteristics of the relevant workforce in relation to job requirements were similar across all plants. In fact, from the point of view of effective management it was important that the relevant Company workforce be treated as relatively homogeneous and a vital part of a unified entity.

 

21:       It follows from the above that the evidence presented by the Company convinced the Panel. We were also convinced that the Company's proposed bargaining unit was in fact the most appropriate one.

 

22:       The Company's proposed bargaining unit was clearly stated in section 3.0 of its written submission. Both the Union and the Company agreed at the Hearing that they understood the proposed definition and that it had an operational meaning to both parties.

 

 

The Panel's decision

 

23:       The Panel's decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit should consist of all manual workers within the manufacturing operations of MFI across their six sites. This consists of 2134 manual workers plus 84 supervisors.

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair: Professor Frank Burchill                Members:         David Bower

 

                                                                                                Paul Gates

 

 

                                                                                                9 March 2001