Case Number: TUR1/529(2006)

7 December 2006

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION

The Parties:

Prospect & PCS

and

National Maritime Museum

Introduction

1. Prospect & PCS (the Unions) submitted a joint application to the CAC dated 22 August 2006 that they should be recognised for collective bargaining by the National Maritime Museum (the Employer) for a bargaining unit described in the application form in the following terms: “All staff employed by the Museum, other than those who are currently members of the Executive Board, and excluding volunteers, sub-contractors, self-employed and agency workers or any other workers not directly employed by the Museum” located at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, London, the Brass Foundry Store in Woolwich, London, the Kidbrooke Store in Kidbrooke, London and the Lawrence Trading Estate Store in Greenwich, London. The CAC gave the parties notice of receipt of the application on 23 August 2006 and the Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 31 August 2006.

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 John Goodman CBE, Chairman, and as Members, Mr Rod Hastie and Lord Lea of Crondall OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

3. By way of a decision promulgated 22 September 2006, the Panel accepted the application. As the Employer had indicated, in its response to the application, that it agreed the proposed bargaining unit, the Panel, not being satisfied that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union, gave notice, pursuant to paragraph 22(3) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule), that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Parties were notified accordingly and were advised that the Panel would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot. The Parties were also asked for their views on which form the ballot should take.

4. Both parties submitted that the ballot should take the form of a postal ballot to which the Panel concurred. The parties were then able to reach agreement as to access during the balloting period and the CAC was notified accordingly.

The Ballot

5. Electoral Reform Services (ERS) was appointed as QIP on 27 October 2006 to conduct the ballot and the Parties were notified accordingly in a letter dated 25 October 2006. The parties were informed that the balloting period would commence on Monday 30 October 2006 and close on Friday 24 November 2006. The postal ballot papers would be despatched on 13 November 2006 to be returned by no later than 10.00 a.m. on Friday 24 November 2006.

6. The QIP reported to the CAC on 24 November 2006, that out of 448 workers eligible to vote, three hundred and seventy-three (373) ballot papers had been returned; there being 3 ballot papers found to be either invalid or spoilt. Two hundred and thirty-six (236) workers, that is 63.8% of those voting, had voted to support the proposal that the Unions be recognised for purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer. One hundred and thirty-four workers (134), that is 36.2% of those voting, voted to reject the proposal. The number of votes supporting the proposal as a percentage of the bargaining unit was 52.68%.

7. The CAC informed the Employer and the Unions on 27 November 2006 of the result of the ballot in accordance with paragraph 29(2) of Schedule.

8. The Employer complained to the CAC of what it regarded as undue influence arising from the Unions' sending campaigning material to all workers in the bargaining unit at their home addresses via the QIP. This complaint was considered by the Panel, with Mr Chris Chapman replacing Professor Goodman for this issue. By its decision dated 5 December 2006 the Panel found the complaints to be not well founded.

Declaration of Recognition

9. The ballot establishes that a majority of the workers voting and at least 40% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit support the proposal that the Unions should be recognised by the Employer for the purpose of conducting collective bargaining in respect of 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.

10. The CAC declares that the Unions are recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit particularised in paragraph 1 of this decision.

Panel

Professor John Goodman CBE, Chairman

Mr Rod Hastie

Lord Lea of Crondall OBE

7 December 2006