Case
Number: TUR1/532(2006)
6 November 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:
Unity
and
Total Home Entertainment
Introduction
1. Unity
(the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 25 September 2006 that it
should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Total Home
Entertainment (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all hourly paid
employees only of the company at the Rosevale Distribution Centre,
Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Unit G site at Lymedale,
Newcastle-under-Lyme”. The CAC gave both
parties notice of receipt of the application on 26 September 2006.
The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 3 October 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 Linda Dickens MBE, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Ms Gail
Cartmail and Mr George Getlevog. The
Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.
Issues
3. The
Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) 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 the Schedule; and
therefore to be accepted.
The Union’s application
4. In
its application to the CAC the Union explained that it
had served the Employer with a formal request for recognition by recorded
delivery on 7 September 2006. The Employer responded to the request by
telephone offering to engage in discussions with the Union
in January 2007. This was not acceptable
to the Union hence the formal application to the CAC.
5. The Union
stated that there were approximately 300 workers in the company and about 300 workers
were in the proposed bargaining unit. 48
of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As to its evidence that the majority of the
workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Union
explained that, in addition to its 48 members on the two sites, it had a
petition signed by 71 non-members supporting its claim for recognition. The Union explained
that the main distribution centre was at Rosevale and that Unit G at Lymedale,
some mile and a half distance, was a smaller ancillary site responsible for
“goods returned”.
The
Employer’s response
6. In
its response to the application dated 30
August 2006 the Employer confirmed that it had received the Union’s
formal request for recognition on 7
September 2006. It responded
to the request by phoning the Union with the suggestion
that the parties met in January 2007 but the Union
declined this offer.
7. The company
employed a total of 671 workers and 411 of these were in the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit. The Employer
could not explain why this figure differed so greatly from that given by the Union
in its application. The Employer did not
agree the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union. It was unable to comment on the Union’s
estimate of its membership within the proposed bargaining unit as the
membership level had not been made known to the Employer. The Employer gave five reasons as to why it
considered that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would
not be likely to favour recognition of the Union:
i) It did not believe that
recognition of a trade union for collective bargaining over terms and
conditions would enhance the good relations already existing between the
Employer and the workers.
ii) There had been no
calls from workers that a trade union be recognised.
iii) The employee
relations climate was good.
iv) There had been
enhancements to terms and conditions over the last few years with the
introduction of the Woolworths Group discount card most recently.
v) Good consultative
arrangements already existed i.e. the Employee Consultative Group which had met
regularly this year.
8. The Employer did not contend that the Union’s
application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or validity criteria
in the Schedule.
Membership
check and parties’ comments thereon
9. To assist the determination of two of the admissibility
criteria specified in the Schedule, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed
bargaining unit were members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and 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 be undertaken by the Case Manager.
10. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply
to the Case Manager a list of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit
giving their name and job titles, and that the Union would provide a list of
its members within the proposed bargaining unit including the date of joining
and confirmation of subscription status, and a copy of the petition it relied
upon as evidence of support for recognition.
It was made clear to the Employer that workers not employed by the
company should be excluded from its list.
It was explicitly agreed with the parties that, to preserve
confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party or
the Panel. These arrangements were
confirmed in a letter dated 5 October
2006 from the Case Manager to both parties. The Panel is satisfied
that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with
the agreement reached with the parties.
11. The Employer provided a list of 407
workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. This list took the form of a spreadsheet and
gave the forename, surname, job title and department of the 407 named
individuals.
12. The Union provided
list of 48 members and a petition containing 86 names. 11 of
the 48 names were annotated “paying”.
The Union also provided an extract from its 2006
Rules which allowed for it to offer free membership to any potential member on
the understanding that if the Union was subsequently recognised
then the appropriate membership rate would immediately apply. It emphasised that free membership did not
give entitlement to any of the financial benefits of the Union.
13. Each of the 16 A4 sheets that formed the Union’s
petition was headed "Private and Confidential” and carried the proposition
“I support Unity’s claim to be recognised at Total Home Entertainment
(THE)”. Two of the 16 sheets were
undated whilst the remaining 14 sheets were dated between 29 August and 12 September 2006. The number of names/signatures on each sheet
varied between one and seven.
14. The Case Manager reported that one sheet
of the petition contained six names that appeared to be written in the same
hand. All the names were of workers in
the proposed bargaining unit though one name was a duplicate. The five names that were not duplicates were
included in the figures in the resultant report.
15. The membership check
showed that there were 45 members of the Union within
the proposed bargaining unit. The check
of the Union’s petition evidence established that there
were 81 workers from within the proposed bargaining unit who had signed the Union’s
petition, representing 19.9% of the workers in the proposed bargaining
unit. 15 of the signatories were members
of the Union and 66 of the signatories were non-
members.
16. A report of the result of the check of the membership level
and petition was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 10 October 2006 and the parties’
comments duly invited.
17. In a letter dated 12 October 2006 the
Employer submitted that, based on the information in the Case manager’s report,
it was evident that the Union’s application was
not admissible as its numbers fell short of the criteria required. In addition, it would appear that some of the
information provided by the Union had been
misrepresented. If the workers that had
been double counted were eliminated (15) along with, those that were not
current employees (5) and the duplicated or illegible names (3), then support
for the Union would stand at 27.27% of the proposed
bargaining unit. This was substantially
short of the threshold required in paragraph 36(1)(b) and showed the Union
was unlikely to achieve the threshold.
18. The
Employer pointed out that 76.74% of workers that had signed the petition had
not joined the Union when free membership was on
offer. It was not clear why this was the
case but it did not appear to be indicative of strong support for union
membership.
19. In a
letter dated 12 October 2006 the Union explained that it had sought the views
of its members on site and those that had signed the petition supporting the
Union’s claim for recognition and all had indicated that the figure of 407
workers as given by the Employer as the number of workers in the proposed
bargaining unit was a gross exaggeration.
It was the Union’s belief that agency workers had
been included in this figure. The Union
formally requested that it be granted an extension of three weeks in order that
it could try to provide written evidence in support of its assertion.
20. In a
further letter dated 13 October 2006
the Union stated that it had obtained a list of both
agency workers (Extra Personnel) and actual employees that cast doubt on the
accuracy of the information provided by the Employer. This list was produced by the Employer for
its own purposes and was dated 1
September 2006 to 30
September 2006. This list,
which clearly differentiated between the two groups of workers, showed that the
number of agency workers was 217 and the number of direct employees was
202. The list did not include employees
based at Unit G, the returns department, which, although based in a separate
building some mile and a half away from the main site, formed part of the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit. The Union
considered that there were 70 workers employed at this unit, the majority being
agency workers. Therefore, the Union
argued, based on a total employee figure of 202 the Union
had 45 members giving a membership density of 22.27%. Working on the same figures, the 81 workers
that had signed the Union’s petition in support of
recognition would mean that 40.09% of the workers in the proposed bargaining
unit had signalled support for the Union. The Union was prepared
to furnish the CAC with a copy of the list on the basis that it remained
confidential. The Union
concluded by requesting that the Panel further examine the authenticity of the
Employer’s figures before any decision was made.
21. The
Panel directed that the Employer be asked for confirmation as to whether its
list of workers that was provided to the Case Manager for the purpose of the
check of Union membership and support in the proposed bargaining unit included
any workers that were not directly employed by the company.
22. In an
email to the Case Manager dated 20
October 2006 the Employer confirmed that the workers on the list
were permanent employees of the company.
The hearing
23. The
Panel, having considered the parties’ submissions, decided to hold a hearing to
help it determine whether the tests were met.
Accordingly, the parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to
exchange, written submissions relating to the considerations set out in
Paragraph 15 of the Schedule. The Panel
directed that, in addition to the Employer’s written submission, it should also
bring to the hearing copies of the contracts of employment of all workers in
the bargaining unit (or alternatively it could bring to the hearing the
contract of every third person named on the list provided to the Case Manager
on 6 October 2006) and a current list of the workers in the bargaining unit,
showing department and job title and employment status (i.e. permanent
employee, temporary employee etc). The Union
was informed it should bring to the hearing the list of workers referred to in
its letter of 13 October 2006
and a current list of its members in the bargaining unit. A hearing was held on 27 October 2006 and the names of those who
attended the hearing are appended to this decision.
Case Manager’s report following the check
of the names on the lists provided by the Union against
lists of names and copy contracts as produced by the Employer
24. Before
the start of the hearing the Case Manager was furnished with the information
that the parties were requested to bring to the hearing (as set out in
paragraph 23 above). The Employer
provided the following information:
i) a list of all of the
workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit giving
forename, surname, job title, department and whether the worker was permanent
or temporary. There were 401 names on
this list.
ii) A list of the workers
for whom copy contracts were provided.
There were 133 names on this list.
iii)
copies of 133 contracts of employment.
iv) Blank
examples of the various contracts provided at iii) above.
The Union provided the
following information:
i) A
list of workers that it claimed were agency workers.
ii) A
list of workers it claimed were contracted employees of the company.
25. The Case
Manager checked the information to firstly confirm that the Employer had
produced the contract of employment for every third worker of its list of
workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
Secondly, the names on the list of those for whom contracts had been
provided were checked against the main list of workers in the bargaining unit
and thirdly, the names on the list of workers for whom contracts had been
provided were checked to see whether any were also on the list of those workers
claimed by the Union to be agency workers.
26. The
Case Manager reported that having compared the list of names of workers for
whom contracts had been provided with the main list of employees as provided by
the Employer he found that each name on the list of those for whom contracts
had been provided was on the main list of workers in the bargaining unit and
the names on the shorter list were indeed those of very third worker on the
main list.
27. The
next check conducted was whether any of the names on the list of those for whom
contracts had been provided were also on the list of agency workers as provided
by the Union.
Having done a comparison the Case Manager reported that no names on the
list for whom contracts have been provided were on the list of agency
workers. In addition, the Case Manager
checked the Union’s list of agency workers against the
full list of workers in the bargaining unit and he reported that he could not
find any names in common.
28. Finally,
the Case Manager did a random check to see if any of the names on the list of
the contracted workers provided by the Union were also
on the list of the workers in the bargaining unit as provided by the
Employer. The Case Manager checked one
of the 4 pages that comprised the Union’s list and found
that every name on that page also appeared on the list provided by the
Employer. The Case Manager produced a
written report of his findings which was handed to the Panel and the parties
before the hearing commenced.
Summary of the
submissions of the Union
29. The Union opened
by explaining how it had changed focus over the last few years and no longer solely
represented workers in the ceramics industry. The Employer was one of several
companies outside the ceramic industry where the Union
was seeking to gain a foothold and it had been trying to win recognition at the
company for several months now. Some of the
members in the proposed bargaining unit had been members for several years and were
paying members whilst others had taken advantage of the ‘free membership
scheme’. When asked by the Panel as to
why so few people had taken advantage of the free membership scheme the Union
explained that the culture of fear and intimidation within the workplace meant
that, whilst workers were happy to sign the Union’s petition, they were
reluctant to provide the Union with their personal details in the mistaken
belief that the Employer would be informed.
30. Union members in the proposed bargaining
unit had indicated that industrial relations within the plant were poor, with lack
of health and safety provisions causing most concern. Wage levels at the company were relatively
low with very high labour turnover. In
response to being asked by the Panel whether there was a history of people
being intimidated within the workplace the Union
explained that there had been one member that had lodged an Employment Tribunal
claim alleging harassment and bullying within the workplace and that a
settlement had been reached.
31. The Union referred
to a witness statement that it had included with its written submissions. The author of the statement explained that he
was employed by the company as a creditor at the Unit G site for some 10 months
until September 2006. He had been
informed by the manager of the Unit G site that the Employer’s policy was to have
a ratio of 80% agency workers to 20% direct employees and that this ratio of
agency workers to employees was also confirmed to him by a representative from
the agency concerned. The Union
submitted that it was important to note that the employment agency concerned, Extra
Personnel, had its own office on the site.
The Union had been informed that there were up to
twelve people per day waiting in the ‘agency office’ looking for work.
32. Whilst the Union accepted that the
information provided by the Case Manager prior to the start of the hearing
spoke for itself, it reminded the Panel that its proposed bargaining unit
comprised all hourly paid employees within the company and it questioned
whether all of the 401 names on the Employer’s list were hourly paid or whether
any salaried staff, who fell outside the proposed bargaining unit, had been
included.
33. If the Employer’s figure of 401 workers
was accepted, the Union had more than 10% of the workers
in the bargaining unit in membership and so the test under paragraph 36(1)(a)
was met. In addition, it was the Union’s
understanding that the Panel had a degree of discretion in arriving at its
decision and the Union would argue that this was a case
that screamed out for a ballot to be held in the interests of good industrial
relations. The Union
submitted that the Panel should exercise its discretion and accept that a
majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to
support recognition of the Union and, on that basis, the
application should be accepted.
34. The Panel questioned the Union
about its petition. The Union
explained that once the workers were assured that they did not have to provide
their personal details they were happy to sign.
The Union explained that it collected signatures
based on its understanding as to the number of workers in the proposed
bargaining unit and that it stopped when it thought it had enough to satisfy
the statutory provisions. The Union
admitted that it had not covered all the shifts, for example the evening shift
had not been approached. The Union
also explained that it had organised a meeting one Saturday afternoon in August
that was attended by 25 people, mainly Union members. Blank petition forms were
handed out at this meeting and members were asked to collect further signatures
on the Union’s behalf.
The Union was not able to confirm whether any
workers refused to sign the petition nor was it able to confirm the proportion
of workers that were asked to sign the petition.
35. In closing the Union
submitted that if it was recognised it would wish to work with the Consultative
Group referred to in the Employer’s submissions, it having practical experience
of working with similar bodies elsewhere.
The Panel had heard from the Employer that industrial relations within
the company were good whereas the Union argued
otherwise. The Union submitted that the truth was that
industrial relations were poor and that a culture of fear and intimidation existed
within the company and this was supported by the statement of the ex-employee. This, the Union
claimed, was an Employer that did not listen to its workers. The Union accepted
that there were 401 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and, based on this
figure it satisfied the 10% requirement.
The Union had explained why workers were
reluctant to sign the petition. The Union
ended by urging the Panel to use its powers of discretion and find in favour of
the Union.
Summary of the
submissions of the Employer
36. The Employer confirmed that, in response
to the query posed by the Union, only hourly paid workers were included on the
lists it had provided to the CAC and it went on to explain that when it had
originally submitted its list of hourly paid workers there had been 407 employed
but that this had recently fallen to the current total of 401. There were a total of 650 employees working
for the company and that in addition there were agency workers employed by
Extra Personnel working on the site. The
178 agency workers on the list provided by the Union were
employed by Extra Personnel and not the company. The Employer confirmed that no individual
named on the list of agency workers provided by the Union
appeared on its list of hourly paid workers.
The Employer confirmed that it employed the 146 contracted workers on
the Union’s second list but that it also employed a
further 235 employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
37 It submitted that the Union’s
application was made in accordance with paragraph 11 or 12 but, as outlined in
the Employer’s submission dated 12
October 2006, the application was inadmissible within the terms of
paragraphs 33 to 42. The Employer
accepted that the Union had 10% of the bargaining unit
in membership but it was the Employer’s case that the evidence provided by the Union
showed that support for recognition amongst the employees was low. Support from the Union’s
petition stood at 16% and Union membership at 11%. This was substantially short of the threshold
required under paragraph 36(1)(b) and had only been achieved after a prolonged
recruitment campaign which had been additionally supported by free membership
in advance of recognition.
Notwithstanding the offer of free membership, a high number of petition
signatories had chosen not to join the Union. This did not show a high level of support for
Union recognition and made the prospect of the Union satisfying
the required threshold extremely unlikely.
38. The Employer responded to the Union’s
claim as to the ratio of contracted employees to agency workers. It had, it explained, checked its figures for
the past year and had found that the highest ratio was of 53% agency workers to
47% employees and the lowest ratio was 27% agency workers to 73%
employees. It described how the numbers
fluctuated over the year as the work was of seasonal nature but that the
average trend was for a 40% agency worker/60% employee split which was clearly
in contradiction to the Union’s submission. As to the worker’s statement included with Union’s
written submissions, the Employer argued that the worker concerned was an
ex-employee of Extra Personnel and so did not fall within the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit.
39. The Employer explained that it was a
successful organisation and that a key factor in its success was the good
relations it had with its employees.
There was a strong culture of communication and good consultative
arrangements existed. The Employer
referred to the Employee Consultative Group (ECG) that was established within
the last 12 months to help surface important issues and develop appropriate
employee based solutions as an example in support of its claim as to it
relationship with its employees. It
explained that the nine representatives and their respective deputies on the
ECG were elected from the various sections within the workforce and that there
were three representatives from the area covered by the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit. Morale was
strong as a consequence of the ECG and the Employer did not believe that the
introduction of a union for collective bargaining would do anything to enhance
this. The Employer described how issues
raised by employees had been addressed through the ECG such as the diverting
the route of a night bus, improvements to the standard of food in the canteen
and the implementation of a service award.
On the other hand, the Union’s claim as to the
state of the relations between the Employer and its employees was
anecdotal. The Employer accepted that
health and safety within the plant could be improved but that this was no
different to other companies. It told
the Panel about examples such as the dedicated house keeping team responsible
for ensuring gangways were kept clear of pallets and offered to produce written
evidence to demonstrate the procedures put in place by the Employer to address such
issues.
40. In closing the Employer submitted that it
considered good industrial relations with its employees as paramount. It confirmed the accuracy of the numbers of
hourly paid employees employed in the bargaining unit and this severely impacted
on the Union’s application for recognition.
Considerations
41. 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
taken into account all the evidence and argument submitted by the Employer and
the Union in reaching its decision. The Panel notes that the Employer did not
contend that the Union’s application failed to meet any
of the admissibility or validity criteria in the Schedule save for the
provisions of paragraph 36(1)(b).
42. 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. 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 was made in accordance with
paragraph 12 of the Schedule.
43. The
remaining issue is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph
36(1) of the Schedule are met. In
accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) and (b) 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, and whether a majority of the workers constituting
the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of
the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the
bargaining unit.
Paragraph
36(1)(a)
44. It was
established at the hearing that the size of Union proposed bargaining unit now
stood at 401 (6 having left since the Case Manager conducted the check of Union
membership and support in the bargaining unit on 9 October 2006). There were 45 Union members in the proposed bargaining
unit giving a membership density of 11.2%.
Many of the Union members are non-paying members, as permitted in the
rules of the union which allow for free membership during a recruitment
campaign; appropriate membership rates to apply if and when recognition is
secured. No challenge to their inclusion
was made by the Employer and the Panel view is that they should be counted in
the same way as paying members. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Union
membership equates to 11.2% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit and
the test under paragraph 36(1)(a) is satisfied.
Paragraph
36(1)(b)
45. The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether
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 is mindful that at this stage of
the process it is obliged under the Schedule to assess support for recognition
of the Union by deciding whether the majority are ‘likely’ to support the application
and not to test ‘actual’ support for recognition. The Union relies upon
its membership and a petition which contains 81 names that appear on the
Employer’s list, of which 15 are Union members, leaving
66 non-members stating support for the Union to be
recognised.
46. If we assume all Union
members are in favour of recognition (a reasonable assumption in the absence of
any evidence to the contrary) and add to these the non-members expressing
support via the petition we arrive at 111 workers, constituting 27.7% of the
proposed bargaining unit of 401.
47. At the time of its application the Union
stated its proposed bargaining unit contained approximately 300 employees and
it calculated that it had the support of approximately 40% of the bargaining
unit (members plus non-members who had signed the petition in favour of
recognition). In the event it turned
out that the number of employees within the bargaining unit was higher than the
Union had calculated and that, although agency workers
were used, these had not been included in the Employer’s lists, as the Union
had contended. Rather than having the
views of around 40% of the bargaining unit therefore we have the views of
between a quarter and a third. The Union
was unable to tell us how many workers had been approached to sign the
petition. The Employer provided no
evidence concerning the views of employees.
48. We need to make an informed assessment of
whether a majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support
recognition of the Union. Given the above figures this
necessitates forming a view about the likely action of a large group of workers
about whom we have no information.
49. In making our assessment we have taken
account of the fact that it is likely that there are those in the bargaining
unit who would support recognition of the Union for collective bargaining but
who have not identified themselves by joining the Union or signing the
petition. There is however quite a large
gap between the level of current support and the majority which would be
required. Employees are less likely to
be prepared to identify themselves as union members or supporters if they fear
employer reprisals. Although the Union
claimed there was a ‘culture of fear’ at the workplace no evidence was provided
to support this contention which was contested by the Employer. The various examples given by the Union
in its submission for the hearing of alleged poor industrial relations (mainly
concerning health and safety issues) were addressed by the Employer at the
hearing, indicating action which had been taken and offering documentary
support. Both parties were credible in
the presentation of their evidence, appeared open and willing to assist the
proceedings as far as they could.
50. We are also sensitive to the difficulties
facing unions attempting to recruit members and secure petition signatures
where they have incomplete information as to the employees they need to target
and no formal access to them in order to persuade them of the potential
benefits of collective bargaining and elicit their support. In reply to direct questioning by the
Chairman at the hearing, the Union indicated it had
experienced problems of this kind but thought it had secured sufficient
signatures. However this is not
geographically a widely dispersed bargaining unit (one main location and a
smaller site); petition sheets were taken into the workplace by supporters
following a recruitment meeting; employees work shifts but it appears Union
recruiters were able to approach workers leaving shift without hindrance from
the Employer, and the Union had information concerning the identity of at least
a proportion of the employees (although this may have post-dated the
application to the CAC the Union could have continued to elicit support).
51. We do not have to be certain at this
stage that a majority of the bargaining unit will support the Union
and the real quantitative test would come later in a ballot if
appropriate. However, in order to accept
an application and so potentially open up the possibility of a ballot there
needs to be some grounds for the CAC to form a view that it is likely that a
majority of the bargaining unit will support recognition of the applicant
union. In this case the Panel feels the
evidence provides no such grounds and so the test under paragraph 36(1)(b) is
not satisfied.
Decision
52. The Union’s
application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, is made in
accordance with paragraph 12, but is not admissible within the terms of paragraphs
33 to 42 of Schedule A1. The application
is therefore not accepted.
Panel
Professor Linda Dickens MBE
Ms Gail Cartmail
Mr George Getlevog
6 November 2006
Appendix
Names of those
who attended the hearing:
Geoff Bagnall – General Secretary
April Molloy‑Barker
– Recruiting Officer
Israr Mohammed –
Recruiting Officer
Tracey Dodd –
Head of HR, Entertainment UK Ltd
Wendy Furness –
HR Consultant, Total Home Entertainment