Case Number:TUR1/528/(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:
Public
and Commercial Services Union (PCS)
and
National
Gallery Company Limited
Introduction
1. The PCS
(the Union) submitted an application to the CAC, dated 16 August 2006, that it
should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by the National Gallery
Company Limited (the Employer), in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all
staff employed as Retail Supervisors, Managers, Senior Sales Assistants and
Retail Assistants in the National Gallery Company shops situated within the
National Gallery”. The CAC gave both
parties notice of receipt of the application on 18 August 2006. On 25
August 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 Paul Davies (Panel
Chairman), Mr Bob Hill 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 4 September 2006. The period was extended until 15 September 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 48 workers in
its proposed bargaining unit, 30 of whom were members of the Union. It also
stated that there had been an increase in its level of membership between 13
June and 3 July 2006 and that it had received a petition from workers at the
Company demonstrating support for union recognition. The petition contained 41 signatures.
6. In
its response to the application, the Employer disagreed with the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit. It stated that
the Company employed approximately 97 workers, of whom 53 were in the proposed
bargaining unit. It stated there was a
high turnover of workers and the total number of employees was regularly
subject to change. The Employer also
presented arguments for its view of an appropriate bargaining unit but stated
it was aware that this was a matter that would be addressed at the next stage
in the statutory process. The Employer
stated that it was not in a position to either admit or deny the Union’s claim
that 30 out of the 48 workers in the proposed bargaining unit were union
members. The Employer stated that it had
no reason to disbelieve that at least 10% of the workers within the proposed
bargaining unit were already members of the Union and that it would provide a
full response to the Union’s claim that it had a petition once it had been
provided. The Employer did not contend
that the Union’s application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or
validity criteria in the Schedule. However, upon enquiry by the Case Manager
the Employer confirmed that it did not admit that a majority of the workforce
were likely to support the Union’s claim.
Membership and Support check
7. To
assist the determination of whether a majority of the workers in the proposed
bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition of the trade union as
entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit
(paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed a
confidential check to be undertaken by the Case Manager.
8. In
letters to both parties dated 4 September 2006, the Case Manager requested that
the Employer provide a list of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit
giving their full name, address, date of birth and job titles, and that the
Union provide a list of its members stating their full name, address, date of
birth and confirmation of membership status within the proposed bargaining
unit, and a copy of the petition. The
Employer provided a list of 45 workers it stated were within the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit and the Union provided a list of 31 union members it
stated were within its proposed bargaining unit, and a copy of its
petition. Both parties provided the
information on a confidential basis.
9. The membership check
showed that there were 26 Union members within the proposed bargaining unit of
45, establishing a membership level of 57.77%.
The check of the
10. A
report of the results of the membership and support check was circulated to the
Parties for their comments on
Considerations
11. In
relation to membership and support, 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.
Paragraph 36(1)(a)
12. The Case Manager’s check of the
Paragraph 36(1)(b)
13. The
Case Manager’s check of the
14. The
Panel is also satisfied, after full consideration of all the documentation
submitted by the parties, the
Decision
15. For the reasons given above, the Panel’s
decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Professor Paul Davies
Mr Bob Hill
Mr Paul Gates