Case Number: TUR3/3/(2006)

13 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 BY THE TRADE UNION UNDER PARAGRAPH 66 OF PART III TO THE SCHEDULE

The Parties:

The National Union of Journalists

(NUJ)

and

Bristol United Press Limited

Introduction

1. The National Union of Journalists (the Union) submitted through its solicitors an application dated 16 October 2006 to the CAC to determine whether the original bargaining unit was no longer appropriate and, if so, what would constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The original bargaining unit consisted of the following workers in the Editorial Department of the Bristol Evening Post & Press Ltd:

Deputy Editor and Assistant Editor, News Editor, Deputy News Editor, District News Editor, Reporters and one of the Messengers;

Chief Sub Editor, Deputy Chief Sub Editor, Assistant Chief Sub Editor and Sub-Editors;

Features Editor, Assistant Features Editors and Writers/Subs;

Picture Editor, Deputy Picture Editor and Photographers,

Design Editor and Artist;

Sports Editor, Deputy Sports Editor, Assistant Sports Editor and Writers/Subs;

Night Editor, Night News Editor and Night Chief Sub Editor,

Production Editor.

The application was received by the CAC on the 17 October 2006 and notice of receipt of the application was given to the parties on 18 October 2006. The Employer submitted a response to the application on the 25 October 2006 that was copied to the Union.

2. In accordance with section 263 of the Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Roy Lewis, Chairman of the Panel, and as Members, Mr Paul Gates and Mrs Jackie Patel. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.

Issues

3. Part III of Schedule A1 to the Act may apply only if the CAC has issued a declaration that a union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit, and provisions relating to the collective bargaining method apply in relation to the unit: paragraph 64.

4. Assuming paragraph 64 applies, the Panel is required by paragraph 68 to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 67 and 92 and therefore should be accepted.

5. Paragraph 92(1) states that an application to the CAC under this Part of the Schedule is not admissible unless it is made in such form as the CAC specifies, and it is supported by such documents as the CAC specifies. Paragraph 92(2) states that an application made by a union to the CAC under this Part of the Schedule is not admissible unless the union gives to the employer notice of the application and a copy of the application and any documents supporting it.

6. Paragraph 67 provides:

(1) An application under paragraph 66 is not admissible unless the CAC decides that it is likely that the original unit is no longer appropriate by reason of any of the matters specified in sub paragraph (2).

(2) The matters are –

(a) a change in the organisation or structure of the business carried on by the employer;

(b) a change in the activities pursued by the employer in the course of the business carried on by him;

(c) a substantial change in the number of workers

(d) employed in the original unit.

Summary of the Union’s views and evidence

7. The Union’s views together with such evidence as it provided were set out in its application to the CAC dated 16 October 2006 and an email from its solicitors dated 30 October 2006.

8. The Union confirmed in its application that it was recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the original bargaining unit (described in paragraph 1 of this decision) as a result of a CAC declaration. It provided a copy of the CAC’s previous decision of 21 January 2002, in which the original bargaining unit was determined. It also provided a copy of the method of collective bargaining agreement between the parties dated 16 April 2002.

9. The Union stated that the Employer had changed its name from “Bristol Evening Post & Press Ltd” to “Bristol United Press Ltd” and referred to a copy of a Companies House print out attached to the application. The Union subsequently explained in its e-mail of 30 October 2006 that it did not seek to rely on the change of the Employer’s name as a ground under paragraph 67 of the Schedule but was setting out why its application was made in respect of an Employer of a different name from that of the Employer in its previous application to the CAC for recognition

10. The Union submitted that it had complied with the requirements of paragraph 92 of the Schedule as the application and supporting documents were copied to the Employer on 16 October 2006. It submitted further that two of the conditions set out in paragraph 67 of the Schedule applied to the original bargaining unit rendering it no longer appropriate.

11. Firstly, there had been a re-organisation of the Employer’s business in 2005. The “Western Daily Press” (WDP) now operated from the same premises as the “Bristol Evening Post” (BEP), for which the Union was currently recognised to conduct collective bargaining. Working practices for both titles were combined in the following respects:

(1) Both titles were produced by the same editorial staff. Workers who had previously worked on one title now worked on both titles. Departments such as Sport, Sub Editors, Pull, Features, Photographic and Graphics now served both titles and the Picture Library and Picture Desk were shared between the two.

(2) There was one pool of sub-editors who were managed by one person.

(3) Both publications had the same Editor-in-Chief.

(4) New contracts of employment referred to the combining of the two titles.

(5) In response to the changes, the Union had combined its two chapels to reflect the new managerial structure.

12. Secondly, there had been a substantial change in the number of workers employed in the original unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager in respect of the previous application to the CAC in 2002 showed that there were 89 workers in the original bargaining unit. However, at the start of 2005 this had reduced to 67. A redundancy exercise in that year had taken out another 15 posts, which had reduced the bargaining unit to 52 workers. There had thus been a 40% reduction since 2002.

13. The Union considered that in the light of the above circumstances a new bargaining unit covering “editorial staff on the Bristol Evening Post and the Western Daily Press with the exception of the Editor –in- Chief” would be more compatible with effective management than the original bargaining unit. The Union believed that it its proposed bargaining unit would include 122 of the Employer’s workers. The proposed new bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

Summary of the Employer’s views and evidence

14. The Employer’s views and such evidence as it provided were set out in an email dated 25 October 2006 from its solicitors to the CAC.

15. The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application on 19 October 2006. It acknowledged that the organisation of the business had changed and also that the level of shared services between the WDP and the BEP had increased since 2005, but submitted that the Union’s description of the changes was faulty in key respects:

(1) The change in the Employer’s name was irrelevant.

(2) The two publications, WDP and the BEP, had always been produced from the same premises.

(3) The WDP, a morning paper and the BEP, an evening paper were by their nature, run as separate newspapers. Each publication had retained its own separate editorial staff and editor.

16. The Employer accepted that there had been a substantial change in the number of workers employed in the original bargaining unit.

17. On the matter of the new bargaining unit proposed by the Union, the Employer did not wish to respond until further clarification of its description could be provided by the Union, which it understood would not be relevant unless the Union’s application was accepted by the CAC.

Considerations

18. The Panel’s decision has been made after carefully considering the parties’ views and evidence.

19. The Panel must be satisfied in the first place that paragraph 64 applies. The CAC issued a declaration of recognition on 7 March 2002 in relation to the original bargaining unit[1]. The parties then made the agreement dated 19 April 2002 applying a method of collective bargaining to the unit. Accordingly, paragraph 64 applies.

20. The Panel is satisfied that in accordance with paragraph 92 the Union completed the appropriate CAC application form and provided supporting documentation. The Union also gave notice of the application to the Employer by copying it together with the supporting documentation to the Employer on 16 October 2006. The Employer subsequently confirmed to the CAC the date of receipt as 19 October 2006. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the admissibility criteria set out in paragraphs 92(1) and 92(2) of the Schedule have been met.

21. The remaining issue for the Panel to determine is whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraph 67. The Union relies upon the matters specified in paragraph 67(2)(a) and (c) as indications that the original bargaining unit is no longer appropriate.

22. In respect of paragraph 67(2)(a) (change in the organisation of the business) the Union contends in effect that the staffing of the two newspapers, the BEP and WDP, is now a combined operation, which by implication it was not in 2002. To demonstrate its point, the Union refers to several departments that were included in the original bargaining unit and within which workers now perform activities for both publications. The Employer maintains that the two publications have always operated from the same site but that they are two separate newspapers with their own editorial staff. However, this does not negate the Union’s point that there are now workers in some of the departments covered by the original bargaining unit who work on or serve both publications. The Panel also notes that the Employer itself agrees that the level of shared services as between the two titles has increased.

23. In respect of paragraph 67(2)(c) (substantial change in the number of workers employed in the original bargaining unit) the Union points to a 40% reduction since recognition commenced in 2002. The Employer concedes that there has been a substantial reduction. It follows that the Panel accepts that there has been a substantial change in the number of workers in the original bargaining unit.

24. In making its decision, the Panel is mindful that it is required under paragraph 67(1) to assess whether it is ‘likely’ that the original bargaining unit is no longer appropriate by reason of the matters listed in paragraph (67)(2). Taking into account the views of the Union and the Employer, it is clear that they are not in disagreement about the substantial change in the size of the original bargaining unit. They also agree that there has been a change in the organisational structure of the Employer’s business but, disagree over the extent of that change.

25. In the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 22-24 above, the Panel’s concludes that it is likely that the original bargaining unit is no longer appropriate by reason of the change in the organisation of the business carried on by the Employer together with the substantial change in the number of workers employed in the original bargaining unit.

Decision

26. The Panel decides:

(1) Paragraph 64 applies in the circumstances of this case.

(2) The application submitted by the Union under paragraph 66 of the Schedule is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 67 and 92 and is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Professor Roy Lewis – Panel Chairman

Mr Paul Gates

Mrs Jackie Patel

13 November 2006