Case Number:TUR1/539/(2006)

29 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:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

and

Newsquest (Essex) Limited

Introduction

1.        The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC, dated 1 November 2006, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Newsquest (Essex) Limited (the Employer), in respect of a bargaining unit comprising Journalists employed at Basildon Echo, Thurrock Gazzette, Southend Standard, Castle Point and Rochford Standard, the Basildon Recorder, the Brentwood and Billericay Weekly News and the Chelmsford Weekly News. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 November 2006.  On 9 November 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 Ms Mary Stacey (Panel Chairman), Mr Simon Faiers and Mr Simon Petch (Members). The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3. The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 16 November 2006. The period was extended until 29 November 2006 in order to allow time for a membership and support check to be carried out by the Case Manager, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the evidence and reach a decision.

Issues

4. The Panel is required, by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act, 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 paragraph 12(4) and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore should be accepted.

5. In its application the Union stated that there were between 50 to 60 workers in the agreed bargaining unit, 33 of whom were members of the Union. It also stated that it could provide to the CAC a copy of its petition as evidence that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining.

6. In its response to the application, the Employer stated that the bargaining unit was agreed and was made up of 61 workers. It asserted that the Union had stated it did not have a majority membership in the bargaining unit and that the Union had refused its requests for a membership check to be carried out. The Employer believed it was unlikely that there were 33 members within the bargaining unit. The Employer stated that it had no reason to believe that workers who were not members of the Union would want the Union to be recognised. However, it also thought that members of the Union might not welcome recognition.

Membership and Support check

7. To assist the determination of 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 to be undertaken by the Case Manager.

8. In letters to both parties dated 13 November 2006, the Case Manager requested that the Employer provided a list of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit giving their full name, address, and job titles, and that the Union provided a list of its members stating their full name, date of birth, date of joining, paid up to date and confirmation of membership status within the proposed bargaining unit, and a copy of the petition. The Employer provided a list of 57 workers within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the Union provided a list of 33 union members within its proposed bargaining unit, and a copy of its petition. Both parties provided the information on a confidential basis.

9. The membership check showed that there were 33 Union members within the proposed bargaining unit of 57, establishing a membership level of 57.89%. The check of the Union’s petition showed that 41 workers from within the proposed bargaining unit had signed the Union’s petition, representing 71.92% of the workers in the proposed bargaining. 30 of those signatures were from members of the Union, and 11 were from non-union members.

10. A report of the results of the membership and support check was circulated to the parties for their comments on 17 November 2006. The Union confirmed by e-mail to the Case Manager on 20 November 2006 that it was happy with the result and did not wish to comment.

11. In an e-mail dated 22 November 2006 the Employer stated that whilst the report on the membership and support check seemed fair, it believed the Union was inconsistent in refusing its request for an independent check to be carried out by Acas and subsequently agreeing to the CAC’s request for a check to be carried out. The Employer stated that it was made clear to the Union that if a membership check had shown that the Union held a clear majority of the proposed bargaining unit, it would have granted a voluntary ballot on recognition, avoiding the need to approach the CAC. It stated that it could only speculate why the Union had taken that attitude and felt it would be regrettable if that effect was to deny staff the opportunity to vote on recognition.

12. The Employer explained further that it believed a ballot would allow both parties to put their case forward and once employees had had an opportunity to consider both sides of the issue, they may realise that collective bargaining would not be in their interests. It stated that it had avoided addressing employees on the matter until now to avoid any risk of being seen as anti-union.

Considerations

13. In relation to membership and support, the Panel is required to decide, firstly, whether under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule, members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit and, secondly, whether under paragraph 36(1)(b) 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 has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and the supporting documentation.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

14. The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s level of membership established that 33 of the 57 workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union (57.89%). The Employer has not disputed that the members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the proposed bargaining unit. The Panel is therefore satisfied that in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a), the 10% test is met.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

15. The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of 57 workers provided by the Employer indicated that 41 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 71.92%. Given the level of union membership and support demonstrated by the petition, and in full consideration of the evidence made available, the Panel finds that the majority of the workers would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the test required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule has been met.

16. The Panel is also satisfied, after full consideration of all the documentation submitted by the parties, the Union’s application does meet the remaining statutory tests.

Decision

17. For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Mary Stacey

Mr Simon Faiers

Mr Simon Petch

29 November 2006