Case Number: TUR1/483/[2005]

22 June 2006

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION THAT UNION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED

The Parties:

National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) and the Associatopn of University Teachers (AUT)

and

Nottingham Trent University

Introduction

1. NATFHE and the AUT (the Unions) submitted an application dated 10 November 2005 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Nottingham Trent University (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Academic Team Leaders (ATL) a grade which was imposed in 2004. ATLs have responsibility for the first line management for academic staff in their designated teams. ATLs worked in the following school/departments located at the City, Clifton and Brackenhurst sites:

· School of Art and Design

· School of the Built Environment

· School of Social Sciences

· School of Arts Communication and Culture

· School of Education

· School of Animal Rural and Environmental Sciences

· School of Biomedical and Natural Sciences

· School of Computing and Informatics.”

The stated location of the bargaining unit was on the three main sites at Nottingham Trent University. The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 11 November 2005 and the Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 18 November 2005, which was then copied to the Unions.

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 Frank Burchil, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr Michael Leahy, and Mr John Rugman. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sarah Kendall.

3. The Panel was required by the Act to decide whether the Unions’ application to the CAC was valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 8; was made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and was admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act. A membership check was carried out which confirmed there were 35 workers in the bargaining unit, of which 32 were union members, based on this and other information the Panel accepted the Unions’ application in a decision dated 19 December 2005. The Parties reached an agreement on the bargaining unit, and confirmed this to the Case Manager in correspondence dated 19 January 2006. The bargaining unit agreed by the Parties, was one comprising “Academic Team Leaders (ATL) a grade which was imposed in 2004. ATLs have responsibility for the first line management for academic staff in their designated teams. ATLs worked in the following school/departments:

• School of Art and Design

• School of the Built Environment

• School of Social Sciences

• School of Arts Communication and Culture

• School of Education

• School of Animal Rural and Environmental Sciences

• School of Biomedical and Natural Sciences

• School of Computing and Informatics

• Nottingham Business School

• Nottingham Law School.”

As the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Unions, the Panel was required to determine if the application was still valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50. By a decision dated 2 February 2006 the Panel determined that the application was still valid, and subsequently invited the parties to make represenations as to whether or not the CAC should arrange for the holding of a secret ballot. In a decision dated 9 March 2006 the Panel decided that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. In the decision the Panel gave notice under paragraph 22(3) of the Schedule that the holding of a secret ballot would be arranged in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Unions to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

Issues

4. In a letter also dated 9 March 2006 the Parties were informed by the CAC that the Panel would wait for the notification period as specified in paragraphs 24(2) and (5) of the Schedule to end before proceeding with the arrangements. The notification period elapsed without the Unions or the Employer jointly informing the CAC that a ballot was not required.

5. In that letter dated 9 March 2006 the Parties were also invited to submit to the Panel, their views on which ‘type’ of ballot should be held. Both the Unions and the Employer responded in writing on 15 March 2006 that a postal ballot would be suitable. By a letter dated 16 March 2006, the Panel informed the Parties of its decision that a postal ballot would be arranged. The Panel subsequently directed that Popularis should be appointed as the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) to conduct the ballot.

6. The QIP was appointed on 12 May 2006. The balloting period started on 13 May 2006 with the Emoployer providing a list of names and addresses of workers in the bargaining unit on 23 May 2006. There were 43 such names and addresses. The Unions queried why the number of workers had increased by 8 since the previous membership check. The Employer provided a list of changes to the workers in the bargaining unit since the previous membership check. The Unions replied that it was ‘happy’ at this point for the ballot to proceed.

7. The QIP reported to the CAC on 12 June 2006 that of the 43 employees in the bargaining unit, 28 ballot papers were received. 16 workers (57.1% of those voting) voted to support the proposal that the Unions should be recognised by the Employer and 12 (42.9% of those voting) voted to reject the proposal. The proportion of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 37.2%.

Declaration of Non - Recognition

8. The ballot established that less than 40 per cent of the workers constituting the bargaining unit voted in favour of recognition of the Unions. Therefore the Unions are not entitled to be recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining. The CAC issues this declaration in accordance with paragraph 29(4) of the Schedule.

Panel

Professor Frank Burchill

Mr Michael Leahy

Mr John Rugman

22 June 2006