Case Number: TUR1/565/(2007)

15 April 2007

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:

Transport and General Workers Union (T&GWU)

and

Aircraft Service International Group (ASIG)

Introduction

1. The T&GWU (the Union) submitted an application dated 26 March 2007 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by the Aircraft Service International Group (ASIG)(the Employer) for a bargaining unit constituting “all staff excluding management grades”. The stated location of the bargaining unit was “Gatwick Fuel Farm, Perimeter Road North, Gatwick Airport, West Sussex, RH6 0JE”. The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 29 March 2007. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 30 March 2007 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 deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Ms Mary Stacey, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr Mike Cann and Mr Simon Petch. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

Issues

3. The Panel is required by 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 paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore should be accepted.

4. In its application the Union indicated that the number of workers in its proposed bargaining unit was 53. The Union attached to its application a list containing the names of 25 Union members and a petition as evidence that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining. The petition contained 36 signatures and the dates ranged from 12 December 2006 to 5 January 2007.

5. In its response to the Union’s application, the Employer stated that it disagreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. It also disagreed with the number stated by the Union and believed the figure did not include all departments. The Employer explained that there was a monthly Employee Forum that was attended by elected staff representatives from all departments and the station manager. Minutes were circulated and displayed and items on the agenda were not removed until they had been actioned and closed. The Employer stated that it had received feedback from a significant number of employees that suggested the recognition process had been instigated by two to three employees. Several employees also felt uncomfortable about signing the petition for union recognition and some Union members had expressed a desire not to be represented by the Union. The Employer stated that there was now a clear expectation and desire for a fair and independent ballot to be held and that would enable all workers within the bargaining unit to make a balanced decision. The Employer did not contend that the Union’s application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or validity criteria in the Schedule.

Paragraph 36 (1)(a) & 36(1 )(b)

6. Paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule provides that the CAC must be satisfied that at least 10% of the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Union provided with its application a list of 25 Union members. Out of a bargaining unit of a bargaining unit of 53 workers, this constitutes a membership level of 47.46%. The Employer did not dispute the number of Union members nor did it suggest that the members on the information provided by the Union were not in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Panel is therefore satisfied that in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule, this test is met.

7. Paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule provides that, for an application to be admissible, the CAC must be satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. In this case the Union provided with its application a copy of a petition which contained 36 signatures. The number of petition signatures out of a bargaining unit of 53 workers constitutes a support level of 67.92%. The Employer has not disputed the number of workers who signed the petition, and although they had concerns about the extent of support for recognition, did not have evidence to support their general description. Where individuals have put their names to a petition in support of trade union recognition which has then been supplied to an employer, then, in the absence of actual evidence to contradict the apparent support indicated by those signatures, in this case the Panel does not consider the concerns of the employer sufficient to go behind the petition itself. The Panel is accordingly satisfied that the majority of workers in 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 in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

Decision

8. For the reasons given above, the Panel is satisfied that the application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 36(1)(a) and 36(1)(b) of Schedule A1. The Panel is also satisfied that the application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1. The application is therefore accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Mary Stacey

Mr Mike Cann

Mr Simon Petch

15 April 2007