Case Number: TUR1/506/[2006]

28 November 2006

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

National Union of Journalists

(NUJ)

 

and

 

Staffordshire Sentinel Newspapers Limited

 

Introduction

 

1.         The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application dated 21 April 2006 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Staffordshire Sentinel Newspapers Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Reporters, feature writers, news desk staff, sub-editors, sports desk staff, photographers, and picture technicians, employed on newspapers and associated products at the offices in Etruria, Stafford, Leek, Crewe, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Cheadle, and Uttoxeter”.  This was received by the CAC and copied to the Employer on the 24 April 2006.  The Employer submitted a response dated 2 May 2006 which was then 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 Frank Burchill, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members Mrs Jean Johnson and Ms Virginia Branney.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.

3.         The Union’s application was accepted the Panel by its decision dated 21 August 2006.  Subsequently, on the 18 October 2006, both Parties wrote to the CAC informing that they had reached an agreement on the approproate bargaining unit which was described as:

 

“Editorial Staff employed on newspapers and associated products at the Company’s offices in Etruria, Stafford, Leek, Crewe, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Cheadle and Uttoxeter (not including those employed to work on the Post and Times Series)

  • comprising Deputy Editor, Assistant Editors, Managing Editor, Reporters and Journalists (including Freelancers with over one year’s service), Feature Writers, News Desk and Sports Desk Staff, Sub-Editors, Photographers, Picture Technicians, Editorial Production Unit Staff, but
  • excluding the Editor, the Editor’s Personal Assistant, the Editorial Secretary, the Commercial Photography Assistant and the Photo Sales Manager”

 

4.         As the agreed bargaining unit was different from that proposed by the Union in its application, the Panel was required by paragraph 20 of the Schedule to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC was valid.  In its decision dated 31 October 2006 the Panel was satisfied  that the application was not invalid within the terms of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and that it was not satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union.  The Panel therefore, gave notice to the Parties that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit will be asked whether they want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. 

 

5.         In a letter dated 31 October 2006, the Parties were invited to submit to the Panel their views on the form of ballot namely whether it should be a workplace or postal ballot ot a combination of these two methods.  A summary of their views follow.

 

 

Summary of the Employer’s views

 

6.         In its letter dated 6 October 2006 the Employer expressed that it preferred a workplace ballot and that it would make provisions for members of the bargaining unit who were based in its district offices, to vote in its main newsroom at its site in Etruria during the working day.  The Employer in its later e-mail of 15 November also stated that statistics had shows that turnout was significantly higher in workplace ballots rather than postal ballots. 

Summary of the Union’s views

 

7.         In its e-mail of 11 November the Union asked for a fully postal ballot for three reasons.  Firstly, because the bargaining unit was spread across 7 different sites, Secondly, because a substantial number of workers had duties that meant they were regularly out of the office and finally, the Employer was part of an organisation that had been resistant to recognition of the Union in the past members were therefore more likely to feel free to cast an unfettered vote by post rather than having to cast their vote at the workplace. 

 

8.         However, the Employer in a responding e-mail dated 15 November 2006 reiterated that a workplace ballot should be held.  It clarified there were no members of the bargaining unit that worked at the Cheadle and Uttoxeter offices and that 40 of the workers in the bargaining unit did not have to regularly leave the office to work.  The Employer accepted the Union’s point that it did not support recognition of the Union but rejected the argument that votes would be affected by this.  It was committed to ensuring that all members of the bargaining unit had an opportunity to vote.  There was no evidence to support the Union’s point that the Employer had or would be unfair or be a party to any malpractice.     

 

 

Considerations

 

9.         In deciding the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the Panel must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:

 

(a)       the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;

 

(b)       costs and practicality;

(c)        such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate

 

 

10.        The Panel accepts the Employer’s point that in this case there has been no evidence that pertains to the issue of the likelihood that the ballot, if conducted at the workplace, would be affected by unfairness or malpractice.  However, the Panel does note that nearly a majority of the bargaining unit would be likely to work off site and also at different sites.   

 

11.        The Panel therefore, having considered the views of the Parties and the factors specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule, finds that a postal ballot would be the most appropriate form of ballot.  

 

Decision

 

12.        The decision of the Panel is that the ballot will be a postal ballot.

 

Panel

Professor Frank Burchill – Panel Chairman

Mrs Jean Johnson

Ms Virginia Branney

 

 28 November 2006