Case Number: TUR1/510(2006)
18 October 2006
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT
1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS NOT
ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED
The Parties:
Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU)
and
Henrob Limited
Introduction
1. The TGWU (the Union)
submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 May 2006 that it should be recognised for collective
bargaining by Henrob Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit
comprising “All Process employees, Crafts and Technicians”. The stated location of the bargaining unit
was Second Avenue, Zone 2, Deeside
Industrial Park, Deeside. The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt
of the application on 8 May 2006. On 16
May 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 Linda
Dickens, Panel Chairman, and as Members, Mr David Bower and Mr Derek Hodgson. The Panel Chairman for a short period during
the ballot was Mr. Christopher Chapman. The Case Manager appointed to support
the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3. By a written decision issued to the
Parties on 5 July 2006, the
Panel accepted the Union’s application. Following this decision the Parties were able
to reach an agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. Both Parties confirmed by e-mail on 31 July 2006 that the agreed bargaining unit was “all Process employees, Crafts, and
Process Technicians located at Deeside, excluding Senior Managers,
Administrative Staff and Administrative Apprentices”. The Parties also confirmed that the agreed
bargaining unit corresponded with that proposed, and clarified, by the Union.
Ballot
4. The Union did
not claim that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were
members of the Union.
The Panel therefore gave notice that it intended to arrange a
ballot. The Parties were invited to
submit their views on the form of the ballot.
On 15 August 2006 both
Parties confirmed to the Case Manager by e-mail that the ballot should be a
postal ballot. The Parties also reached
an agreement on the Union’s access during the balloting
period.
5. The Panel subsequently directed that Popularis
should be appointed as the QIP to conduct a postal ballot. The QIP was appointed on 4 September 2006 and the Parties were notified
accordingly. The balloting period
started on 5 September 2006,
with a completion date of 2 October
2006. The postal ballot
papers were due to be dispatched on 19
September 2006 and the closing date for their return was 10.00am on 2 October 2006.
6. In an e-mail dated 11 September 2006
the Union informed the Case Manager that due to a misunderstanding by both
Parties, the dates scheduled for access meetings did not coincide with the
ballot timetable and the Employer would not allow the Union access to the
workers until the second and sixth day after the ballot papers were dispatched. The Union believed
this was unreasonable. The Employer submitted
its comments to the CAC by e-mail on 13 September 2006. It stated that whilst it would be disappointed
by a delay in the process, if the Panel believed the dates of the meetings were
prejudicial to the ballot, it suggested that the ballot papers should be posted
to workers on 25 September 2006
and the closing date for their return should be 9 October 2006. In
a letter dated 15 September 2006 the Panel informed the Parties that it would
be in the interests of good industrial relations for workers to cast their vote
based on an informed decision that would only be achieved if workers had an
opportunity to hear what each party had to say before casting their vote. The Panel notified the Parties of the revised
timetable whereby postal ballot papers would be dispatched on 26 September 2006 and the closing
date for their return was 10.00am on 9 October 2006.
7. The QIP reported to the CAC on 9 October 2006 that, of the 53
workers in the bargaining unit, 38 had voted in the ballot; there were no
spoilt ballot papers. 14 workers (36.8% of those voting) had voted to support
the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the
Employer, and 24 workers (63.2% of those voting) had voted to reject the
proposal. The proportion of workers
constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 26.4%.
Declaration that the Union is not entitled to be Recognised
8. The ballot did not establish that at
least of 40% of the workers in the bargaining unit supported the proposal that
the Union be recognised by the Employer for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the bargaining unit.
9. In accordance with paragraph 29(4) of
the Schedule, the CAC declares that the Union is not
recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on
behalf of the bargaining unit.
Panel
Professor Linda
Dickens, Panel Chairman
Mr David Bower
Mr Derek Hodgson
18 October 2006