Case Number: TUR1/566/(2007)

July 5 2007

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

ALAE

 

and

 

SR Technics – easyTech Ltd

 

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         ALAE (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 5 April 2007 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by SR Technics – easyTech Ltd (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “[a]ll engineering staff at Luton, Liverpool and any other base that may be set up”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 April 2007.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 20 April 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 Professor Gillian Morris, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr Ged Fisher and Mr Michael Leahy.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Tola Babatunde.

 

 

 

 

3.         By a decision dated 10 May 2007, the Panel accepted the Union’s application.  The parties then entered a period of negotiation which resulted in an agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit.  The parties agreed that the appropriate bargaining unit consisted of Licensed Aircraft Engineers at Liverpool and Luton and the following categories of worker at Luton: IT; Logistics Co-ordinator; Mechanic; Maintenance Control/Technical; Administration; Planning; Quality; Shift Supervisors; Stores and Training. 

 

4.         The Union did not claim that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were Union members, so the Panel gave notice to the parties that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.  The parties were notified accordingly in a letter dated 15 June 2007 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) and 24(6), before arranging a secret ballot.

 

5.         The notification period under paragraph 24 of the Schedule ended on 29 June 2007.  The CAC was not notified by the Union or by both parties jointly that they did not want the ballot to be held, as envisaged by paragraph 24(2).  Accordingly, the Panel will proceed with arranging a secret ballot.

 

Union’s submissions on the form of ballot

 

6.         In a letter dated 6 June 2007 the Union stated that its preference would be for a postal ballot to be held.  In its view  it would be easier for individuals to vote at home in confidence and free from all workplace distractions. The Union also advised that many of the staff to be balloted were shift workers and, as such, could be on leave for up to three weeks. The Union requested that, as it did not know how many would be on leave at any one time, sufficient time be allowed for the return of the ballot papers.

The Union reiterated this preference in a further letter dated 14 June 2007. The Union stated that the Works Council had conveyed to the Union that this would also be its preferred method. Referring to the Employer’s submission that many of the staff lived in temporary accommodation whilst at work and that this would not be conducive to a postal ballot, the Union submitted that those people who may be on leave over the period of the ballot would possibly be excluded from a workplace ballot. The Union submitted that the home address of all employees must be held by the employer so that they may send to them their pay slips, P60 or any other official communication so, providing sufficient time was allowed for shift workers to return home and for those who may be on leave, a postal ballot would be truly independent. 

 

Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

 

7.        In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 7 June 2007 the Employer requested that a workplace ballot should be held. The Employer stated that a number of employees lived in temporary accommodation away from home whilst working shifts and therefore may miss a postal vote. As a result, to ensure that all employees would have  the opportunity to vote it requested a workplace ballot. In an email to the Case Manager dated 13 June 2007 the Employer stated that, if the Panel had any concerns about financing a workplace ballot, the Employer would be prepared to fund such a ballot. 

 

Considerations

 

 8.        In deciding the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC 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

 

 

9.        The Panel, 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

 

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

 

11.       The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the Parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

 

 

Panel

 

 

 

Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chairman

Mr Ged Fisher

Mr Michael Leahy

 

5 July 2007