Case Number: TUR1/475/[2005]

24 January 2006

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

 

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

National Union of Journalists

(NUJ)

 

and

 

TalkSPORT Limited

(trading as Signal Radio)

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application dated 8 September 2005 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by TalkSPORT Ltd trading as Signal Radio (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All journalists and speech producers working in the Signal Radio newsroom supplying editorial content to Signal Radio and its allied services”.  The stated location of the proposed bargaining unit was the “Newsroom, Stoke Road, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2SR”.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 12 Septmber 2005 and the Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 15 Septmeber 2005, 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 Dr Elizabeth Allen and Mr Mike Regan.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.

 

3.         The Panel was required by the Act to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC was valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 8; was made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and was admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act and by its decision dated 14 October 2005, the Panel accepted the Union’s application.  As the Parties were unable to reach an agreement on the 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.  A hearing was held on 6 December 2005 and, after careful consideration of the Parties’ oral and written submissions, the Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was the Union’s proposed bargaining unit as described in paragraph 1 of this decision.

 

Issues

 

4.         Following the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit, the Panel is required to decide whether or not a ballot should be held to determine the issue of recognition.  Schedule A1 to the Act provides that where the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2).  However, paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found there is a majority of union members in the bargaining unit, if any of the three qualifying conditions as set out in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled.  The qualifying conditions are as follows:

 

a) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;

 

b) the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;

 

c) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

 

Views of the Union

 

5.         By a letter to the CAC dated 4 Janaury 2006, the Union stated that it continued to have no less than 75% union membership within the bargaining unit as referred to in paragraph 12 of the Panel’s decision to accept the application of 14 October 2005.  It had no grounds for believing that any of the 3 conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule were met and therefore in its view the Union should be granted recogntion without a ballot. 

 

Views of the Employer

 

6.         The Union’s letter of 4 January 2006 was copied to the Employer by the CAC in which the Panel invited the Employer to respond to the Union’s views.  Subsequently, by its letter dated 11 January 2006 the Employer confirmed to the CAC that it would not appeal against the decision made by the Panel.

 

Considerations

 

7.         The Act requires the Panel to consider first whether it is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are union members.  If the Panel is satisfied that the majority of the bargaining unit are union members, it must then decide if any of the three conditions listed in paragraph 22(4) are fulfilled.  If the Panel considers that any of them are fulfilled it must give notice to the Parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.

 

8.         The Union has claimed from the outset of its application that it has 75% membershp within the bargainig unit i.e. 3 out 4 workers in the bargainig unit are union members.  The Employer, throughout the application process has not disputed this point.  Therefore, the Panel has no reason to believe that the level of memebrship within the bargainng unit has changed. 

 

9.         Paragraph 22(4)(a) requires the CAC to order a secret ballot even when there is majority Union membership in the bargaining unit where it is satisfied that to do so would be in the interests of good industrial relations.  In this case neither Party has proposed evidence that a holding a secret ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations.  The Panel is statisfied that this condition is not met.  

 

10.        Paragraph 22(4)(b) requires that if the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on or their behalf; it must order a ballot.  The Panel has not been so informed by any union members from the bargaining unit.  The Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition is not met.

 

11.        Paragraph 22(4)(c) requires the Panel to order a secret ballot where membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.  No such membership evidence has been produced. The Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition is not met.

  

Declaration of Recognition

 

12.          The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.  Additionally, the Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule are met.  The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit as set out in paragraph 1 of this decision namely:

 

All journalists and speech producers working in the Signal Radio newsroom supplying editorial content to Signal Radio and its allied services located in the Newsroom, Stoke Road, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2SR.

 

 

Panel

 

Professor Frank Burchill -  Chairman of the Panel

Dr Elizabeth Allen

Mr Mike Regan

 

24 January 2006