Case Number: TUR1/499(2006)
9 November 2006
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT
1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS
ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED
The Parties:
Amicus
and
X-FAB UK Limited
Introduction
1. Amicus (the Union)
submitted an application to the CAC dated 10 March 2006 that it should be recognised for collective
bargaining by X-FAB UK Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit
comprising “All workers in Manufacturing Operations at the XFAB UK Plymouth
site excluding Managers and Team Leaders.”
The stated location of the bargaining unit was “XFAB UK Limited, Tamerton
Road, Roborough, Plymouth,
PL6 7BQ.” The application was received by the CAC on 10 March 2006. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC
on 17 March 2006, 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 John Purcell,
Panel Chairman, and as Members, Mr Mike Cann and Lord David Lea. The Case Manager appointed to support the
Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.
3. By a decision dated 26 April 2006 the Panel accepted the Union’s
application. As
the Parties were unable to reach agreement as to the appropriate bargaining
unit, both Parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange,
written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the
appropriate bargaining unit for a hearing held on 14 June 2006. In
a decision dated 23 June 2006
the Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was “All workers up to
and including team leaders in the following departments – Manufacturing and
Operations, Quality and Technology.”
4. As the determined bargaining unit was
different from that proposed by the Union in its
application, the Panel was required to determine whether the Union’s
application was valid or invalid. By a
decision dated 18 August 2006,
the Panel determined that the application was not invalid and gave notice to
the Parties, in accordance with paragraph 20(5) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the
Schedule), that it would proceed with the application.
Ballot
5. The Union did
not claim that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were
members of the Union.
Therefore the Panel gave notice that it intended to arrange a ballot. The Panel asked for the views of the Parties
on the form of the ballot and, in a letter dated 5 September 2006 announced that the ballot should be a workplace
ballot with a postal element for absentees.
The Parties were then able to reach agreement as to access during the
balloting period and the CAC was notified accordingly.
6. Popularis Ltd was appointed as the Qualified Independent Person
(QIP) on 28 September 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 29 September 2006 and close at 2.00
pm
on 26 October 2006. The postal ballot papers would be despatched
on 13 October 2006 to those workers, whom it was known in advance would not be
present at the workplace on the day of the ballot, to be returned by no later
than 2.00 pm on 26 October 2006. The workplace ballot would take place at 11.00
am – 2.00 pm on 13, 16, 17 and 19 October 2006.
7. On the 6 October, the CAC received written confirmation from
both Parties that they had agreed dates for access meetings to take place which
were in accordance with the work place ballot taking place on 26, 27, 30 and 31
October 2006 to take into account of the shift patterns. Therefore, by a letter dated 9 October 2006
the CAC notified the Parties that the workplace ballot would take place at 8.00
am – 11.00 am on 26, 27, 30 and 31 October 2006 and, in accordance with
paragraph 25(3)(b) of the Schedule, the last date for ballot papers to be
returned was extended to 2.00 pm on 1 November 2006.
8. On 26
October 2006 the Employer notified the CAC of a worker, who
was abroad, and had not received a ballot paper. The Employer was asked to provide the CAC
with the worker’s current address, and was notified that the individual’s
ballot paper would be sent by express delivery and could be returned by way of
a scanned document e-mailed to the QIP.
9. On 1
November 2006, the CAC was informed that the ballot paper had
not reached the worker and as a consequence, the Panel extended the deadline
for the return of the ballot paper issued to that worker to 2.00 pm on 2
November 2006. It was
made clear to the Parties that this extension applied solely to that worker.
10. On 2 November 2006 the QIP reported that, of the 173
workers in the bargaining unit, 162 had voted in the ballot and there were no
spoilt ballot papers. 97 workers, 59.88%
of those voting had voted to support the proposal that the Union
should be recognised by the Employer, and 65 workers, 40.12% of those voting
had voted to reject the proposal. The proportion
of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 56.06%.
Declaration that the Union is to be Recognised
11. The ballot established that the majority
of the workers voting, and at least 40% of the workers in the bargaining unit,
supported the proposal that the Union should be
recognised by the Employer for the purposes of collective bargaining within 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.
12. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union
is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining unit on behalf of
the bargaining unit consisting of:
“All workers up to and including team leaders
in the following departments – Manufacturing and Operations, Quality and
Technology.”
Panel
Professor John
Purcell – Panel Chairman
Mr Mike Cann
Lord David Lea
9 November 2006