Case Number TUR1/563(2007)

11 September 2007

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECISION ON THE FORM OF THE BALLOT

 

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

Unite the Union

 

and

 

The College of Law

 

 

Introduction

 

  1. Unite the Union, formally known as Amicus, and hereafter referred to as the Union, submitted an application to the CAC dated 19 March 2007 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by The College of Law (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all tutors at the Birmingham Branch”.  The location of the bargaining unit was given as “The College of Law, 133 Great Hampton Street, Birmingham, B18 6QA”.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 19 March 2007.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 29 March 2007, which was copied to the Union.

 

  1. 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 Roy Lewis, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr Bob Hill and Ms Bronwyn McKenna.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah Kendall.

 

  1. By a decision dated 16 April 2007 the Panel accepted the Union’s application.  The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit.  However, no agreement was reached and so the parties were informed that a hearing would take place at which the bargaining unit would be determined.  The parties were duly invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit and a hearing was held in London on 18 June 2007.

 

  1. In a decision promulgated on 4 July 2007, the Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit should be one that comprised all tutors (Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Principal Lecturers and Associate Professors) employed by the College of Law, excluding Directors and Deputy Directors.  This bargaining unit differed from that originally proposed by the Union by the inclusion of tutors based at sites in addition to Birmingham.

 

  1. As the determined bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union the Panel was required by paragraph 20 of the Schedule to determine whether the Union’s application was valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50.  To this end both Parties were invited to supply the Panel with written submissions relating to the validity tests.

 

  1. By a decision dated 16 August 2007 the Panel determined that the application was valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and that the CAC would therefore proceed with the application.

 

  1. The Union did not contend that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit were union members and, in accordance with paragraph 23(2), the CAC, in letters to the parties dated 16 August 2007, gave notice that it intended to arrange a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit determined by the CAC would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

 

  1. The Panel also advised the Parties that it 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 the form which the ballot should take.

 

  1. The notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 30 August 2007.  The CAC was not notified by the Union or by both Parties jointly in accordance with paragraph 24(2) that they did not want the ballot to be held.

 

Union’s submissions on the form of ballot

 

  1. The Union, in its letter dated 31 August 2007, expressed a preference for a combination ballot because it believed that using both workplace and postal voting would secure the greatest participation in the ballot.  The Union also set out the balloting arrangements as proposed to the Employer.  It proposed that the parties agreed the facility for a ballot box at convenient locations prominently displayed in each of the 6 sites on the 2, 3 and 4 October 2007.  It stated that the Union should have the right of an observer to watch the voting during the ballot, and that at the end of each voting day the ballot box would be sealed and secured in an agreed location.  The Union requested that the workers in the bargaining unit should be given the option of a workplace or a postal vote.  The Union stated that as yet the Employer had not responded to its proposal.

 

Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

 

  1. In a letter dated 29 August 2007 the Employer expressed its preference for a postal ballot on the grounds that it would be more pragmatic in this case.  Its reasoning was that because the ballot would take place across six different sites a workplace ballot would be resource intensive, especially taking into account the different hours of work of the Tutors depending upon whether they were teaching full time, part time or at evenings or weekends.  In the circumstances the Employer considered that a postal ballot would give each Tutor the best opportunity to vote on this issue with minimal disruption to the College particularly in view of the commencement of the new Autumn term.  

 

Considerations

 

  1. When determining 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

 

  1. The Panel has considered the views of both parties. The Panel considers that a postal ballot would be appropriate in this case.   It is the Panel’s view that a postal ballot would be consistent with a high level of participation in the ballot by all relevant staff in view of the varying hours and working patterns of the Tutors.  The Panel also has regard for the fact that the location of the bargaining unit is spread over six sites. 

 

Decision

 

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

 

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

 

Panel

 

Professor Roy Lewis

Mr Bob Hill

Ms Bronwyn McKenna

 

11 September 2007