Case Number: TUR1/553(2007)
10 July 2007
CENTRAL ARBITRATION
COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 -
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
The Parties:
Unite – the Union
and
Pierhead Housing
Association
Introduction
1. Amicus (the Union)
submitted an application, dated 26
February 2007, to the CAC that it should be recognised for
collective bargaining by Pierhead Housing Association (the Employer) for a
bargaining unit consisting of “All contracted non-executive staff up to and
including the position of manager”. Following the merger of Amicus and the TGWU the application will
proceed in the name of “Unite – 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 John Goodman CBE, Chairman of the Panel, and, as
Members, Mr Bill Lockie and Ms Virginia Branney. The Case Manager appointed to support the
Panel was Miss Tola Babatunde.
3. Following the acceptance of the Union’s
application on 30 March 2007
the Parties entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach an agreement
on the appropriate bargaining unit but, as no agreement was reached, a hearing
was convened on 15 June 2007
to determine the appropriate bargaining unit under paragraph 19(2) of the
Schedule. The 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.
4. Both Parties provided written submissions
several days prior to the hearing, which were forwarded to the Panel and to the
Parties. Responding to the Employer’s
written submission the Union offered the Employer a
compromise variation from its proposed bargaining unit. The Employer did not accept this and the
hearing proceeded on the basis of the proposed bargaining unit set out by the Union
in its application to the CAC. The names of those who attended the hearing are
appended to this decision. In accordance
with paragraph 19B of Schedule A1 it is the Panel’s task to determine first
whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is
appropriate and then, if it is found not to be so, to determine another
bargaining unit that is appropriate.
Issues
5. Shortly before the hearing the Employer
submitted further written statements to the Case Manager. These were distributed to the Panel and to
the Union, which accepted them without requiring
additional time. The Union had informed the Case Manager late on the eve of the
hearing that it wished to bring a witness to the hearing but that it was unable
to confirm this until the morning of the hearing itself as the witness was
uncertain as to their availability. The
Case Manager informed the Panel of this possible attendance. At the hearing the Employer expressed its
disappointment at the lack of notice and at the particular witness, a former employee
of the Association with whom the Employer was said to have had a volatile
relationship at times and whom the Employer regarded as likely to be a hostile
witness. The Union
explained that none of the current employees in its proposed bargaining unit,
including Union members, had been willing to attend the hearing although it
would not speculate as to the reason why this was the case. It explained that it was during a recent
meeting the Union’s representative held with workers in
the proposed bargaining unit that a worker had informed the representative that
they had contacted the ex-employee and that the ex-employee was willing to
attend on behalf of the Union.
6. The Employer submitted that its main difficulty
with the Union’s late introduction of a witness was that
it had been denied the opportunity to prepare for cross-examination of the Union’s
witness; or to have had the opportunity to bring its own witness. Following an adjournment, during which the
matter was discussed with both Parties, it was accepted that the witness’s
contribution would be confined to answering questions put only by the
Panel. The Panel also gave the Employer
the opportunity to submit its own statement in writing within five working days
following the hearing, relating to the witness’s employment and attendance at
meetings of the Senior Management Team.
Summary of the Union’s submission
7. In its submission the Union asked the Panel
to consider the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Regina (Kwik-Fit)
(GB) Ltd) v. Central Arbitration Committee, where it stated that guidance was
given on how the CAC ought to determine the bargaining unit. It stated that in that case the Court of
Appeal held that the task of the CAC was to determine whether the structure
proposed by the Union was appropriate for bargaining
unit purposes and not for the CAC to choose the most appropriate bargaining
unit from those submitted to it. The
Union contended that the word “appropriate” was used by the Parliamentary
Draftsman to direct the CAC’s attention to whether the bargaining unit it had
under consideration was suitable for the purpose of which it was to be used. It stated that the Court of Appeal held that
if the CAC concluded that the Union’s unit was
appropriate it should stop there; that the CAC did not have to conduct a search
for the most appropriate unit from among those that were proposed to it. In the Union’s view,
the test to be applied was whether its proposed bargaining unit was “an”
appropriate bargaining unit, rather than the “most” or “more” appropriate
bargaining unit. The Union reminded the
Panel that its proposed bargaining unit was “All contracted non-executive staff
up to and including the position of manager”.
The reasons for selecting this unit were that “This is a common
bargaining group across all Merseyside Housing Associations where Amicus is
recognised, where it is agreed that Executive Officers, ie. CEO and Directors
will not form part of the bargaining group.” It was submitted that “this
arrangement is compatible with effective management because it avoids
fragmentation of bargaining units within the organisation, and takes into
account the characteristics of the workers.
CEO and Directors would not be appropriate to include because of the
nature of their management and disciplinary responsibilities.”.
8. The Union pointed out that in the response
to its application to the CAC, the Employer had refused to accept the proposed
bargaining unit because it did not believe that the proposed bargaining unit
would be compatible with effective management of the business as it included
staff with management and disciplinary responsibilities and staff whose
contracts relating to pay, hours and holidays were different to others within
the proposed bargaining unit. The Union believed
that the Association had agreed with its stated number of 38 workers in its
proposed bargaining unit by acknowledging that the total workforce consisted of
42 workers less the four workers the Union had excluded
from the unit. The Union
argued that the composition of the proposed bargaining unit had been discussed
and agreed with the Employer at a meeting involving the Parties at Acas’s
premises on 5 June 2006. It referred the Panel to an e-mail of the
minute prepared by Acas that it had attached to its submission which it stated
contained confirmation of the agreed bargaining unit consisting of all employees
with the exception of the CEO and Directors.
It quoted Acas’s minute of the meeting as stating “The proposed
Bargaining Group will consist of permanent employees up to and including Senior
Management Team but excluding the Chief Executive and the three Executive
Directors.”. The Union further justified
the inclusion of the senior managers in its proposed bargaining unit by its
belief that they were not involved in conducting negotiations relating to pay,
hours and holidays but that rather the CEO or the Executive Group/Board decided
these matters based on the current going rate or the level of funds available
to the organisation. The Union’s
representative recalled two meetings with the Employer last year to discuss a
possible voluntary agreement. Notwithstanding what the Union believed to be
some reticence on her part, the Head of
Customer and Business Services had sent an e-mail to Acas on 6 June 2006
stating “Additional bullet point:- ….whilst the Executive Team had expressed
concerns about Senior Managers being part of the bargaining unit, this would be
acceptable as long as Amicus are able to provide assurances within any
agreement that practical difficulties and any potential conflicts of interest
can be dealt with satisfactorily”. The Union
advised the Employer about the benefits of recognising Amicus and there had
been discussions about holding a ballot with associated Union access but in the
event a ballot did not take place.
9. The Union
pointed out that it was quite common for one union to represent workers at
different organisational levels and cited the examples of UNISON representing a
range of grades in the health and local government sectors without any
difficulty and the MSF/Amicus negotiating on behalf of employees up to
executive officer level. It did not
consider the Employer’s concerns over the feasibility of Unite – the Union
representing managers at the Housing Association as significant. In the Union’s
experience it was common for unions to represent most staff at levels apart
from the most senior officers on matters such as pay structure, hours and
holiday entitlement. For a large union like Unite – the Union,
representing members including both management and junior staff in the proposed
bargaining unit at Pierhead Housing Association was no different from that
operating in other housing associations. It referred to the rarity of
industrial action and assured the Employer that no union relished the prospect
of industrial action given the financial disadvantage to its members and the
disruption to the employer’s business. Regarding the Employer’s concern about
the Union’s ability to manage a conflict involving two
union members, the Union cited an example where it had appointed
two officers to represent each member separately, thereby successfully
controlling the conflict. In response
to the Employer’s concern regarding potential conflicts of interest, the Union
stated that it expected its members always to conduct themselves in the highest
professional way regardless of their position in an organisation. It therefore had no doubt that its members,
such as those in senior management, were capable of dealing with disciplinary
issues even in cases involving other union members. It did not believe that simply belonging to a
union should exempt people from holding managerial positions. It was the Union’s
regional officer’s experience over 35 years that there had been no major
dispute arising over this issue in a Housing Association. Members were able to perform their duties as senior
staff and as union members simultaneously.
In relation to workplace
representatives, the Union’s preference was for these to
be drawn normally from grades or levels with larger numbers of workers. However, if no such worker volunteered it
might be a senior worker who volunteered for that union role. This was often the case in small sized
organisations as in the case of a women’s charity which employed six people
where the union representative was a senior manager who conducted themself
appropriately in the two roles. The Union
stressed that it had long experience of methods and mechanisms of dealing with
the issues raised by the Employer as conflicts of interest, and argued that
such worries were readily overcome in practice.
10. The Union
explained that it had deliberately excluded the four most senior managers at the
Association from its proposed bargaining unit as a matter of consistency within
the housing association sector. In response to the Employer’s argument that the
Finance Manager should be removed from the Union’s proposed bargaining unit
because they were part of the Executive Group, the Union contended that this
manager was merely a temporary member of the Executive Group, as a result of
acting up in the role in the absence of the Finance Director, and therefore
should be included in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.
11. Finally, the Union
argued that its proposed bargaining unit was the common model which applied
throughout Merseyside-based housing associations and nationally where the Union
was recognised. As the bargaining unit
it proposed contained 38 of the 42 workers employed by the Association it did
not regard it as small or fragmented.
The workers in its proposed bargaining unit were on very similar terms
and conditions although there were some differences which it believed to be
minor in nature. Twenty-two of the
workers, forming a majority of its proposed bargaining unit, were based at one
location with the remainder spread over six other locations. The Union considered
its proposed bargaining unit to be perfectly compatible with effective
management and appropriate within the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in
the Kwik-Fit decision. It emphasised
that both local and national experience of the operation of bargaining
arrangements that it had proposed showed that they were compatible with
effective management.
Union’s Witness statement
12. The witness was a former employee of Pierhead
Housing Association whom the Union
felt could give evidence to support its case through their membership of the Senior
Management Team in 2006 (the witness having been employed from 1998 until late
2006). In answering questions from the
Panel the witness indicated that during the witness’s term as part of the Senior
Management Team although departmental issues were discussed at meetings of the forum
following its establishment in April 2006, this was a non-decision making body
with no power to make a decision on core business issues. The meetings of the Senior
Management Team (also described by the witness as the senior’s managers’ forum)
were attended by the Chief Executive Officer, (who acted as the Chairman), the
Head of Customer and Business Services, three directors, and all departmental
managers except for housing managers as their posts were not designated as
senior management posts. On one
occasion, the Head of Customer and Business Services had proposed a
recommendation in respect of a review of employees’ terms and conditions which
the witness felt could be best described as a fait accompli, although staff had
been invited to comment and the only manager to challenge the recommendation
met with the Employer’s disapproval. The
witness felt that an important issue such as a change in the Association’s
structure which resulted in the organisation being down-sized should have been
discussed at the senior managers’ meeting/forum before its implementation but that
was not the case. Employees had similar
terms and conditions of employment with only minor exceptions, one being that
managers and above did not have flexible working arrangements and overtime was
taken as time off in lieu instead of receiving payment as was the case for the
rest of the staff.
Summary of the Employer’s submission
13. The Employer submitted that the Association
was a small to medium sized employer with locations in Merseyside and the
Northwest of England providing accommodation for a wide category of people
including students. It values its staff who it considered to be key and who were
free to join any trade union of their choice.
The Employer was aware that the Panel’s duty was to determine a
bargaining unit which was appropriate for business needs and compatible with
effective management. Prior to the Union
submitting its application to the CAC the Employer had pursued the voluntary
recognition route with the Union without success. It argued that the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management because
it included five senior managers who formed 55% (i.e. five out of the nine
members) of the Association’s Senior Management Team. It argued that this would create significant
managerial, operational, disciplinary and grievance resolution
difficulties. Two of these managers were
departmental heads, one of whom (the Head of Customer and Business Services)
was also Head of Human Resources and was the Employer’s contact with the CAC on
this application and two of the other three senior managers were deputy
directors. Part of the Senior Management
Team’s responsibilities was reviewing the Association’s terms and conditions of
employment so that recommendations may be made to the Association’s governing
body. This meant that the five senior
managers could effectively be “sitting on both sides of the negotiating table” if
they were to be included in the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union,
thereby leading to conflicts of interest and a potential breach of the
Association’s Code of Conduct for staff.
The Employer also believed that it would create significant conflicts of
interest as the five senior managers had delegated powers to act in the final
appeal stage of the disciplinary and grievance procedures. It suggested that this was a point that even
the Union had made by stating on its application to the CAC that it wished to
exclude certain senior staff because of their “management and disciplinary
responsibilities”. It believed that this
had already been recognised by the Union when in
correspondence with the Employer, Amicus’s then Assistant General Secretary
confirmed that the five senior managers held a “very senior position”. Further, the Employer argued that some of these
senior managers would represent the Employer if a joint negotiations board were
to be set up with the Union, creating a serious conflict
of interest through these managers “sitting on both sides of the table”.
14. In response to the Union’s
question about the difference between the terms and conditions of employment at
Pierhead Housing Association and other housing associations, the Employer explained
that Pierhead had similar arrangements to other housing associations for
pensions and redundancy compensation based on the statutory scheme of age and
length of service. The Housing
Association did not pay staff bonuses, new members of the Executive Team did
not have an automatic right to a company car, and only two of the five members
have company cars. The Association had
recently held an extensive consultation exercise in an effort to improve its
documentation system on health and safety and human resources issues which was originally
drawn up in 1998 and added to subsequently.
Contrary to what had been suggested by the Union’s
witness, staff views were taken into consideration following consultation
although no substantive changes were made to the existing provisions based on an
external consultant’s recommendation.
15. Although the decision on annual salary
increases fell to the Board of Management, the Senior Management Team had
participated in the recent review of the terms and conditions and the Senior
Management Team could make recommendations to the Board. It was explained that following the external consultant’s
review of terms and conditions of employment, the Employer circulated the
result to senior managers and staff, then back to the senior managers for a
second review and recommendation. However,
as there was no variation recommended the Executive Group did not deem it
necessary to present the final result to the Board of Management before the
implementation.
16. On the issue of potential industrial
action being faced following union recognition, the Employer believed that it
could be left with only four senior staff (ie. those outside of the proposed
bargaining unit) to manage seven business locations whilst dealing with the
needs of vulnerable residents. In view
of these anticipated difficulties the Employer proposed an alternative
bargaining unit which it believed was more appropriate to effective management
and would avoid fragmentation, consisting of “all grades below senior
management level” and would total 33 staff.
In support of its proposal the Employer contended that although its
alternative bargaining unit included staff with line management
responsibilities, different terms and conditions of employment and were based
at several locations, it considered this unit to be a fair compromise as it
covered all non senior managers and represented 78.5% of the workforce as
opposed to the Union’s proposed 90.5%. The Employer argued that whilst its
alternative bargaining unit included some staff below senior manager level who
had supervisory and disciplinary responsibilities they did not have the broader
and more senior management duties that the Senior Management Team possessed. Its
suggested alternative bargaining unit of nearly 80% of the workforce therefore
provided an effective opportunity for less senior staff to be represented
without fragmentation. The Employer disputed the Union’s
submission that the bargaining unit proposed in its application had been agreed
earlier with the Employer.
17. The Employer indicated that it had
rejected the proposal from the Union to modify its
proposed bargaining unit, made in writing on 13 June, for a number of
reasons. These included its view that
the proposal was selective, had not been justified on grounds of compatibility
with effective management and that the previously identified difficulties would
continue.
18. The Employer requested that the CAC agree
to a secret ballot of staff in the interest of good industrial relations and
transparent democratic process whereby staff would have an appropriate opportunity
to participate in the process which affected them directly. The Employer
explained that it had always had a very good working relationship with its
staff and that it respected their wishes to join any trade union of their
choice which might arise from numerous reasons including individual personal
support and discounts on holidays, travel, insurance etc. The Employer therefore did not believe that
staff had necessarily joined a trade union with a specific desire for
recognition for collective bargaining purposes and the personal
responsibilities that brought for the individual. The Employer did not know the identity of the
Union’s members and could not be certain as to the level
of support. However it had had no
indication from its staff that they wished to seek recognition on behalf of
Amicus, the suggestion had come solely from the Union
itself. Without solicitation, several
staff including union members had indicated that they did not support the
recognition process. In a letter to the
Case Manager dated 12 June 2007,
two members of the Senior Management Team had written to request their
exclusion from the Union’s proposed bargaining unit due
to the seniority of their positions and the nature of their responsibilities.
19. The Employer was not convinced that the Union
had demonstrated the necessary level of support as evidenced by the lack of a petition
from the workers and despite seeking recognition via the statutory process the Union
had at no point claimed that a majority of its members in its proposed
bargaining unit supported this. The
Employer also referred critically to a Union press release in March this year,
letters it had sent directly to members of the Association’s governing body and
a subsequent letter to its Chairman. The
Employer reiterated its request that a secret ballot be called in order to
clear up any doubt.
20. In conclusion the Employer held firmly to
its position that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit (and
its minor modification) would dissect and damage the Association’s management
structure. It argued that the Union
did not recognise the responsibilities exercised by senior managers including
disciplinary duties. Further the Union
failed to address the issue of effective management and an appropriate rationale
was not given for the Union’s compromise bargaining unit. Neither did the Union
acknowledge the possibility that the Senior Management Team would face conflicts
of interest by the inclusion of its members in the proposed bargaining
unit. The Association was different from
how it was described by the Union in its submission, and
this – it argued – showed the Union did not understand
its operation. The Union’s
proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management, whereas the
Employer’s alternative proposed bargaining unit was and would be more
manageable.
Employer’s response to the Union’s witness statement
21. Following the hearing, the Employer
confirmed in writing that the Union’s witness was
employed at the Association in the role of Development Manager; that that post
was made redundant on 29 December
2006; and that the post was paid on a senior manager’s pay scale
which was applicable only to members of the Senior Management Team. The witness was the only Senior Management Team
member not to have line management responsibility and so did not have any managerial
experience of the Association’s disciplinary and grievance resolution
procedure. It contended that the witness
had effectively left the Association in early November 2006.
22. In relation to the terms and conditions
of employment the differences between the Senior Management Team and less
senior staff were that (a) two months’ notice was given by either the
Association or the staff (one month for staff below senior manager level). In addition up to five weeks’ notice was to
be given by the Employer based on long service.
(b) Company cars were provided to the two deputy directors of housing
and technical services; (c) SMT members did not participate in flexible time working
arrangements due to seniority and related departmental management
responsibilities; (d) no payment in respect of overtime but time off in lieu
instead; and, (e) senior managers were allowed the use of a car park pass.
23. The Employer gave details of the dates,
agenda items and the number of pages of minutes of each Senior Management Team
(SMT) meeting. It stated that most meetings
lasted approximately two hours with nine senior staff involved and one officer
administering and taking minutes of the meeting. The Employer stated that there was a total of
8 meetings held in 13 months between April 2006 and May 2007 and that the
Union’s witness attended three of those (with dates given) before effectively
ceasing to be a member of the SMT. All
senior managers were encouraged to participate in SMT meetings and all minutes
and agendas were circulated for review/agreement in advance of meetings and everyone
was invited to place items on the agenda.
24. The Employer submitted a lengthy list of business
management matters that had been reviewed by the SMT. These included the Association’s performance
reporting information, annual budgets and related financial management issues,
risk management, health and safety, tenant-focused management issues, equality and
diversity, terms and conditions of employment, draft employee handbook, absence
management, staff training and computer related issues.
25. After the hearing, the Technical Services
Manager at the Housing Association wrote a letter to the Case Manager dated 18 June 2007, in direct response to
the Union’s witness attendance. The Technical Services Manager indicated that
the letter was late, as it was sent after the hearing and the fact that it was
not necessarily part of the Employer’s main submission, but was related to the
Panel’s acceptance of the Union’s witness. In the letter the Technical Services Manager
requested that he be excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit due to the
seniority of the post and the nature of its responsibilities.
The Union’s
response
26. In a letter dated 22 June 2007, the Union
expressed its objections to the extent and nature of the Employer’s written
response to the Union’s witness evidence arguing that
the Employer was only invited to state the number of SMT meetings the witness
attended during their employment with the Association. The Union was ‘a
little surprised’ at the Employer using the opportunity to prepare detailed
further submissions, and argued that these went beyond the terms of the
allowance made by the CAC Panel. On the
issue of late introduction of a witness the Union
pointed out that the Employer had in fact submitted supplementary written
statements on the day before the hearing, with a further submission to the Union’s
representative on the day of the hearing. The Union
stated initially that its witness had attended five Senior Management Team
meetings during their membership of this group. In an e-mail to the Case
Manager on 26 June 2007, it
accepted that the witness had attended three meetings.
Considerations
27. In accordance with paragraph 19B of
Schedule A1 the task facing the Panel is to determine whether the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.
In doing so it must take into account the employer’s views including any
view it has of any other bargaining unit that the employer considers would be
appropriate. The Association’s
organisational chart was described as consisting, in hierarchical terms, of (1)
the Board, who are lay members, (2) the Executive Group made up of five staff in
total including the Chief Executive Officer, three directors and (recently) the
Head of Customer and Business Services, and (3) the Senior Management Team consists
of the Executive Group and five senior manager posts. It is the inclusion of these five senior
manager posts in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit
that is at the core of the difference between the Parties.
28. Having carefully considered all the
evidence put to it the Panel has decided that the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit is not compatible with effective management and
therefore is not appropriate. The Panel considers that it is not appropriate
because of the inclusion of one senior manager, the Head of Customer and
Business Services, who has recently become a member of the Executive Group and
is also the Head of Human Resources. The
Panel’s decision is made having considered the specific context and structures
within this Association. It considers that
this role has a particular status – which was acknowledged by the Union
– and a number of distinctions from the four other senior management
posts. It is likely that the occupant of
this post, acting in both capacities, will be directly involved in possible
future negotiations with the Union and with making recommendations and some
decisions on matters relating to pay, hours and holidays.
29. The Panel considers that the Employer’s
alternative bargaining unit is also not appropriate. The Panel’s view is that it excludes posts
that are widely included in collective bargaining arrangements in this and
related sectors and posts which the Panel considers do not have decision-making
powers on the issues of pay, hours and holidays at the Association. More generally, the Panel is of the opinion
that some of the Employer’s concerns were based on stereotypes and fears in the
event of a very hostile relationship with the Union. The Union has
endeavoured to allay these concerns by the examples it gave of mechanisms including
replacing a representative or a worker should a dispute arise where there is a
possible conflict of interest. Many of the
Employer’s concerns appear to be largely based on worst case ‘what if’
possibilities, to which the Union gave both assurances and examples of
contemporary practices and solutions drawn from its experience elsewhere, which
the Panel found convincing. The Union also cited the
professional manner in which managers who were union members conducted
themselves in carrying out their duties. The Panel felt that the difficulties,
for example possible conflicts of interest and in discipline and grievance
handling, presented by the Employer were capable of practical resolution
through discussions with the Union. For
all these reasons the Panel did not consider that the bargaining unit it has
determined would dissect the management structure of the organisation.
30. The Employer argued for the exclusion of all
five members of the Senior Management Team, as well as members of the Executive
Group, which includes the person who is currently acting up in the role of
Finance Director in the absence of the post holder. Consequently the Panel has considered the
issue of senior managers acting up and effectively becoming part of the
Executive Group albeit temporarily, which therefore would not be compatible
with the Union’s original proposed bargaining unit
description. The Panel’s view is that a
temporary membership of the Executive Group through temporary personal promotion
does not constitute adequate grounds to exclude the senior management level
post. The Panel is mindful of the Union’s
assertion that the task at hand is the determination of an appropriate
bargaining unit.
31. The Panel received letters from some of
the five members of the Senior Management Team indicating their personal
preferences to be excluded from the Union’s proposed
bargaining unit. More broadly the case
for their exclusion (and that of others) was put forward by the Employer in
submissions both for and at the hearing.
The Panel is mindful that in terms of the statutory test it is the views
of the Employer and of the Union rather than those of
individual workers which the Panel must consider at this stage, in so far as
they do not conflict with the need for the bargaining unit to be compatible
with effective management.
32. The Panel has also considered the matters
listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with
the need for the bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management. The Panel has taken into account the views of
the Parties as summarised in this decision.
The Panel is satisfied that there are no operative national or local
agreements covering the Company’s employees, and that there are no other
relevant issues relating to the characteristics of the workers or to location
beyond those which it has taken into account.
Decision
33. The Panel therefore determines that the
appropriate bargaining unit is “All staff posts with the exception of the
permanent members of the Executive Group i.e. excluding the Chief Executive
Officer, the directors and the Head of Customer and Business Services.”. The Panel will proceed in accordance with
paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to decide if the application is valid or invalid.
Panel
Professor John
Goodman CBE
Mr Bill Lockie
Ms Virginia
Branney
10 July 2007
Appendix
Names of those who attended the
hearing:
For the Union
Ms Rachael Maskell - National Officer
Mr Steve Power - Regional Officer
Mr Neil Johnson - Solicitor
Ms Karen Hunter - Witness
For the Employer
Mr Graham Coslett - Chief Executive
Ms Nicole Squires - Head of Customer and Business Services