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:
AMICUS
and
X-FAB UK Ltd
Introduction
1. AMICUS (the Union) submitted an
application dated 10 March 2006 to the CAC that it should be recognised for
collective bargaining purposes by X-FAB UK Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining
unit comprising “All workers in Manufacturing Operations at the XFAB UK
Plymouth site excluding Managers and Team Leaders.” The stated location of the bargaining unit
was “XFAB UK Limited, Tamerton Road, Roborough, Plymouth, PL6
7BQ.” The application was received by
the CAC on 10 March 2006. The Employer
submitted a response dated 16 March 2006 which was received and copied to the
Union by the CAC on 20 March 2006.
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 case. The Panel consisted of Professor John Purcell,
Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr Mike Cann
and Lord David Lea. The Case Manager
appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.
Issues
3. 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; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of
Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore should be accepted.
Summary of the Union’s views
4. The Union stated that there were 174
workers employed by the Employer and 130 workers in the proposed bargaining
unit of whom 46 were members of the Union.
Its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit were because a
recent restructure in the organisation had taken place and led to the formation
of the manufacturing/operations department.
Workers from the manufacturing/operations department that had been
excluded from the proposed bargaining unit were all management employees. However, workers that were included in the
proposed bargaining unit did similar work and had similar industrial
concerns. They shared similar terms and
conditions of employment which were different from the terms and conditions
applied to other categories of worker.
All the workers in the proposed bargaining unit had the same supervision
structure and were under a manufacturing director. The Union stated that the proposed bargaining
unit had not been agreed with the Employer.
5. As evidence that the majority of
workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for
collective bargaining, the Union stated that 35% of the workers within the
proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Union also had as evidence a petition in
support of recognition that had been signed by 95 employees, 54 of whom were
non-members. The Union offered to provide
a copy of a list of its members, as well as the petition.
6. Finally, the Union attached to its
application a copy of its written request for recognition to the Employer dated
10 February 2006 and the Employer’s response to that letter which was dated 16
February 2006.
Summary of the Employer’s views
7. In its response to the Union’s
application, the Employer confirmed that it had received the Union’s written
request for recognition on 10 February 2006.
It had responded by letter on the 16 February 2006 (a copy was attached)
informing the Union that it did not agree to recognition of the Union or to the
proposed bargaining unit. The Employer
provided a brief explanation of its views which included issues surrounding the
exclusion of workers who in its view had similar roles, terms and conditions of
employment and therefore concerns, as the workers included by the Union in its
proposed bargaining unit. It believed
that the exclusion of these workers would lead to the fragmentation of the
workforce on the site and would not be beneficial to industrial relations. The Employer also mentioned that it operated
a Works Council which represented the whole workforce. However, at the acceptance stage of the
statutory process, the legislation requires the Panel to apply the statutory tests
to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.
Therefore this aspect of the Employer’s case was not considered by the
Panel for the purposes of this decision.
8. The Employer said that there were
129 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit which was 1 less then that
stated by the Union in its application.
The Employer also informed that due to the reorganisation of the Quality
and Manufacturing departments which were announced in 2005, the size of the
bargaining unit would reduce in the coming weeks as some of the workers would
transfer to the Quality Department.
9. In respect of the Union’s level of
membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer did not agree or
disagree with the Union as it was not aware of any union membership. However the Employer did express views on
whether the majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to
favour recognition of the Union. It
stated that the result of the Union’s petition would depend on what and how the
question on the petition was raised.
Informal feedback received by the Employer had shown that many workers
did not wish their terms and conditions of employment to be subject to
collective bargaining by the Union.
Finally, the Employer stated that the Works Council Representatives had
previously advised that the majority of workers wanted an opportunity to vote
on whether or not they wished to be represented by a trade union.
Membership and Support Check
10. To assist in the determination of the
admissibility criteria specified by Paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, the Panel
requested that an independent check of union membership in the proposed
bargaining unit and of the number of workers in the unit who had signed the
Union’s petition supporting recognition should be conducted by the Case
Manager.
11. Both the Union’s list of its members
in the proposed bargaining unit and the Employer’s list of workers in the
proposed bargaining unit were provided on 29 March 2006. It was agreed that to preserve
confidentiality the information provided by the Parties would not be copied to
the other Party. The arrangements for
the membership and support check were confirmed in a letter to both Parties on
28 March 2006.
12. The Employer provided a list of 129
names. The Union provided a list of 45
names of members. The Case Manager
carried out a comparison of the names and the results of the membership and
support check were produced as a numerical report. The membership check established that 42
workers in the proposed bargaining unit were Union members, resulting in a
membership level of 33%. The support
check established that 92 of the signatures on the petition were in the
proposed bargaining unit (71%), 40 of those signatures were from members of the
Union (31%) and 52 of those signatures were from non-union members (40%). The Membership Check Report was circulated to
the Parties for their comments.
Summary of the Parties comments
13. By its letter dated 5 April 2006, the
Union stated that the membership and support check carried out by the Case
Manager established that there was 33% union membership amongst the workers in
the proposed bargaining unit, and that 71% of the workers in the proposed
bargaining unit had signed a petition which was clearly related to the question
of recognition. The membership and
support check report therefore showed that at least 10% of the workers in the
proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union and that a majority of the
workers had shown that they were in support of recognition of the Union. In its view therefore, the Union had
satisfied the requirements of both paragraph 36(1)(a)
and paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.
14. By its letter dated 18 April 2006,
the Employer pointed out that there was a risk that workers that had been asked
to sign the Union’s petition may have felt under some peer pressure to sign
it. In its view, it was important to
test the real level of support for recognition of the Union in a secret ballot
once a practical bargaining unit had been identified.
Considerations
15. In deciding whether to accept the
application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity
provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence
submitted by the Parties in reaching its decision. The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a
valid request to the Employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9
of the Schedule as the Union provided a copy of the request made to the
Employer on 10 February 2006 to recognise it for collective bargaining in
respect of the proposed bargaining unit described in paragraph 1 of this
decision. The request was made in
writing and identified the Union, the proposed bargaining unit and stated that
the request was made under the Schedule.
The Panel is also satisfied that the application is not rendered
inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 and
is in accordance with paragraph 11(2) of the Schedule.
16. The remaining issue for the Panel to
address then is whether the admissibility criteria of paragraph 36(1) of the
Schedule are met.
17. In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) of the schedule the Panel must determine whether
members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit. The Panel
finds that in considering the evidence submitted by the Parties and the results
of the membership and support check, the first criterion in paragraph 36(1)(a)
is satisfied as the figures show that 33% f the proposed bargaining unit are
members of the Union. Accordingly the
Panel is satisfied that the 10% test is met.
18. According to paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, the Panel must assess whether a
majority of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely
to favour recognition of the Union. The
Panel at this stage of the process is obliged under the Schedule to perform its
duty to assess support and not just membership of the Union by deciding whether
the majority are ‘likely’ to support the application as specified by paragraph
36(1)(b). To
this end the Panel is satisfied that this admissibility criterion has been met
for the following reasons.
19. The Panel notes that 40 of the 45 union
members signed the petition asking for union recognition for collective
bargaining purposes. It is therefore
satisfied in this case that a worker who has joined the union can be deemed to
be in favour of that union negotiating with the Employer on matters related to
terms and conditions of employment.
Although the Panel is aware that, for the purposes of deciding on the
admissibility of the application, the Union is not required at this stage of
the application process to achieve majority membership within the proposed
bargaining unit, the Panel notes that in this case the results of the
membership check established that 33% of the workers in the proposed bargaining
unit are members of the Union. The Union
has also demonstrated through its petition that a further 40% of the workers of
the proposed bargaining unit, although not members of the Union, have shown
support for recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Panel therefore concludes that the
overall likely support for recognition in this case can be quantified as 73%.
20. In consideration of the above the Panel
is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to show that the 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 proposed bargaining unit. On this
basis the Panel finds that the test under paragraph 36(1)(b)
is met.
Decision
21. The Panel is satisfied that the
application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, is made in
accordance to with paragraph 11 and is admissible within the terms of
paragraphs 33 to 42 of schedule A1. The
application is therefore accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Professor
John Purcell (Chairman)
Lord David
Lea
Mr Mike Cann