Case Number: TUR1/503(2006)

14 September 2006

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION

 

 

The Parties:

 

Public and Commercial Services Union

 

and

 

Adecco UK Limited

 

Introduction

 

1.         The Public and Commercial Services Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 4 April 2006 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Adecco UK Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Workers employed by (the Employer) and on placement at the Rural Payments Agency, Workington – British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS)”.  The bargaining unit was based on two sites in Workington, Cumbria.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 4 April 2006.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 11 April 2006 which was duly 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 deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Professor Paul Davies, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr Arthur Lodge and Mr Roger Lyons.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

 

3.         By a decision dated 5 May 2006 the Panel accepted the Union’s application.  The parties then entered into a period of negotiation with a view to reaching an agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit.  This period was extended to 4 July 2006 to allow more time for the parties to conclude their agreement.  The Union, in an email dated 4 July 2006 confirmed that the parties had reached agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit and that the agreed bargaining unit was the same as that proposed by the Union in its application and as set out in paragraph 1 above.

 

4.         On 4 July 2006 the Union was asked whether it was claiming majority membership within the bargaining unit and was therefore submitting that it should be granted recognition without a ballot.  In a letter dated 10 July 2006 the Union replied saying that, due to the continual expansion of the bargaining unit, it was unable to confidently claim majority membership at this time. 

 

5.         As a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not members of the Union the Panel gave notice, pursuant to paragraph 22(3) of the Schedule, that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.  The Parties were notified accordingly and were advised that the Panel would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot.  The Parties were also asked for their views on which form the ballot should take.

 

6.         The Employer, in a letter dated 24 July 2006, expressed a preference for a postal ballot.  It explained that it operated as an employment business and supplied the services of those workers that formed the bargaining unit to the British Cattle Movement Survey, a part of the Rural Payments Agency, and submitted, inter alia, that it would be inappropriate for the interests of a third party to be adversely affected by the running of a workplace ballot.  

 

7.         In an email to the Case Manager dated 25 July 2006, and repeated in a subsequent letter on 26 July 2006, the Union requested that the ballot take the form of a workplace ballot on the basis that the workers in the bargaining unit had indicated that this was their preferred choice.

 

8.         Having considered the parties’ representations the Panel, in a letter to the parties dated 28 July 2006, announced that the ballot would take the form of a postal ballot.  The parties were then able to reach agreement as to access during the balloting period and the CAC was notified accordingly.

 

The Ballot

 

9.         Popularis Ltd was appointed as QIP on 11 August 2006 to conduct the ballot and the Parties were notified accordingly in a letter of the same date.  The parties were informed that the balloting period would commence on Monday 14 August 2006 and close on Monday 4 September 2006.  The postal ballot papers would be despatched on 21 August 2006 to be returned by no later than 2.00 p.m. on Monday 4 September 2006. 

 

10.       On 29 August 2006 the Union contacted the CAC with a list of 21 workers that had notified the Union that they had not received a ballot paper.  This list was forwarded to the QIP who despatched duplicate papers to those workers whose names were on the Employer’s list and for whom no ballot paper had been returned.  However, seven of the names and addresses provided by the Union did not appear on the Employer’s list of names. The Employer was asked to confirm whether or not those workers whose names were not on its list were in the bargaining unit and therefore entitled to vote. 

 

11.       On 31 August 2006 the Union notified the CAC of a further two workers that had not received a ballot paper and, upon subsequent checking by the QIP, were identified as not being present on the Employer’s list of workers in the bargaining unit.  The Employer was once again asked for confirmation as to these workers entitlement to vote.

 

12.       On 31 August 2006 the Employer confirmed to the CAC that those workers who had reported non-receipt of a ballot paper and whose names were not on the list of workers it had provided for the purpose of the ballot were indeed in the bargaining unit and were therefore entitled to vote in the ballot.

 

13.       As a consequence, the Panel extended to 2.00 pm on Wednesday 6 September 2006 the deadline for the return of ballot papers issued to those workers that were not on the Employer’s list and for those workers that had recently changed address.  It was made clear to the parties that this extension applied solely to these categories of worker.

 

14.       In response to a letter from the Union dated 1 September 2006 alleging that the number of workers in the bargaining unit was greater by some 40 workers than the number on the Employer’s list, the Chairman of the Panel directed that the Employer undertake a check as to the accuracy of the information it had provided for the purpose of the ballot and extended the balloting period to such time as the Employer had carried out the check and the Panel had had the opportunity of taking any appropriate steps should discrepancies be identified.  The parties were notified of the extension to the balloting period by letter dated 4 September 2006.

 

15.       The Employer reported back to the CAC on 4 September 2006 as to its findings on the check of the accuracy of its list.  The Chairman of the Panel, having considered the findings of the report, directed that the parties be informed that, if no ballot paper had already been returned, then ballot papers would be despatched to those workers identified in the Employer’s report as having changed address during the balloting period but where the change had not been notified to the CAC, to those workers whose addresses had been identified as containing clerical errors and to those new starters whose details had not been forwarded to the CAC.  There were nine workers identified as falling in these three categories.  The parties were given notice that ballot papers for these workers were to be returned by no later than 2.00 pm on Friday 8 September 2006 at which time the ballot would formally close. 

 

16.       The QIP reported to the CAC, on 8 September 2006, that out of 574 workers eligible to vote, three hundred and sixty-eight (368) ballot papers had been returned; there being no spoilt ballot papers.  Three hundred and sixty-eight (368) workers, that is 100% of those voting, had voted to support the proposal that the Union be recognised for purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer.  No workers had voted to reject that proposal.  The number of votes supporting the proposal as a percentage of the bargaining unit was 64.11%.

 

 

 

Declaration of Recognition

 

17.       The CAC informed the Employer and the Union on 8 September 2006 of the result of the ballot in accordance with paragraph 29(2) of Schedule.

 

18.       The ballot establishes that a majority of the workers voting and at least 40% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit support the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer for the purpose of conducting collective bargaining in respect of the bargaining unit.  This satisfies the conditions under which the CAC must issue a declaration in favour of recognition in accordance with paragraph 29(3) of the Schedule.

 

19.       The CAC declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit particularised in paragraph 1 of this decision.

 

 

 

 

Panel

 

Professor Paul Davies, Chairman

Mr Arthur Lodge

Mr Roger Lyons

 

 

14 September 2006