Case Number:TUR1/419/(2004)

Case Number:TUR1/490/(2006)

20 February 2006

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

and

Archant Suffolk

Introduction

1. The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC, dated 24 January 2006, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Archant Suffolk (the Employer), in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all Journalists employed at Archant (Suffolk)”. It stated that the publications were the East Anglian Daily Times, Ipswich Evening News, Suffolk Mercury/Advertiser series of freesheets, Suffolk glossy magazine and Let’s Talk! Suffolk. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 25 January 2006. On 30 January 2006 the Employer submitted a response to the CAC, which was copied to the Union.

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 consider the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Gillian Morris (Panel Chairman), Mr Simon Faiers and Mr Paul Gates (Members). The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3. The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 8 February 2006. The period was extended until 20 February 2006 in order to allow time for a membership and support check to be carried out by the Case Manager, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the evidence and reach a decision.

Issues

4. The Panel is required, by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act, to decide whether the Union's application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore should be accepted.

5. In its application the Union stated that there were approximately 122 workers in its proposed bargaining unit, 73 of whom were members of the Union. The Union also stated that a petition supporting recognition had been signed by a majority of the workers in its proposed bargaining unit and that it would provide this petition to the CAC on request.

6. In its response the Employer stated that it agreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, as defined as “Suffolk Journalists”. However, it stated that its current staffing lists indicated that there were 131 workers in this bargaining unit, which would fall subject to exclusions at senior level. The Employer further stated, in its response to the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, that it had last received a formal request for recognition under Schedule A1 to the Act on 30 September 2004. Since that time it had made significant changes to the business, with staff leaving it. It asked the CAC to check on a confidential basis the names supplied by the Union and Employer to ensure that the claimed union members were still working within the business and to confirm the numbers and job roles within the bargaining unit. It also stated that it was unaware of any petition and did not know what statement employees had signed up to. It asked to see the question and for the CAC to check the percentage of staff in the bargaining unit who had signed the petition. The Employer did not contend that the Union’s application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or validity criteria in the Schedule.

7. To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed a check to be undertaken by the Case Manager of the level of union membership and support for recognition within the proposed bargaining unit. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names of workers within the proposed bargaining unit and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of Union members within that unit and a copy of its petition in support of recognition to enable comparisons to be undertaken. It was explicitly agreed with the parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and the petition would not be copied to the other party. The agreed arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 7 February 2006 from the Case Manager to both parties. The information from the Employer was received on 7 February 2006 and from the Union on 9 February 2006.

8. The list of workers supplied by the Employer was broken down into the following categories: Cost Centre; Title; Post Number; Employee number; surname and initial(s) and FTE (Full Time Equivalent). This list contained 126 names, three of which were duplicates. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 75 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 72, a membership level of 58.54%. The petition supplied by the Union contained 89 signatures, of which 83 were those of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represented 67.48% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 83 signatories, 70 were members of the Union (56.91% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 13 were non-members (10.57% of the proposed bargaining unit). The petition consisted of eight pages, at the top of each of which was stated “We are all Journalists employed by Archant Suffolk and would like the National Union of Journalists to be recognised and represent us on issues relating to pay, hours and leave”. Signatories were asked to print and sign their name. At the bottom of each page was stated “We understand that by signing this petition our names will not be disclosed to the Company and only provided to Acas who will treat this information in confidence”. No additional checks were undertaken to verify the information supplied by the parties. The Case Manager’s report of the results of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 10 February 2006.

9. The parties were invited to submit comments on the membership and support check. In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 14 February 2006 the Union stated that it had no comments to make on the report. In an e-mail dated 16 December 2006 the Employer stated that it did not have an issue with the content of the report and that, whilst there appeared to be some minor discrepancies, it did not feel that they made any significant differences to the overall percentages.

Considerations

10. The Panel is required to decide, firstly, whether under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule, members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit and, secondly, whether under paragraph 36(1)(b) a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and the supporting documentation.

11. The Panel is satisfied that the Case Manager’s membership check, described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, which showed that 58.54% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union, was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that the level of union membership in the bargaining unit does constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

12. The second issue for the Panel to consider is whether, under paragraph 36(1)(b), a majority of workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. For the reasons given in the previous paragraph the Panel accepts that the level of union membership is 58.54%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the level of union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit and is satisfied on this ground alone that the majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule. The Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 67.48% of the workers in the bargaining unit had signed a petition in support of recognition of the Union. The Employer did not contest the reliability of the petition as an indicator of the views of those workers. The Panel considers that the petition provides an additional ground for its conclusion that the majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

13. In addition, the Panel is satisfied, after considering all the documentation submitted by the parties, that the Union’s application meets the remaining statutory tests.

Decision

14. For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Professor Gillian Morris

Mr Simon Faiers

Mr Paul Gates

20 February 2006