Case Number: TUR1/570/2007

                                                                                                                       7 September 2007

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

 

 

The Parties:

 

Communication Workers Union (CWU)

 

and

 

Cable & Wireless

 

Introduction

 

  1. The CWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated30 April 2007 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Cable and Wireless Plc (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “employees in UK Field Services (except Managers)”.

 

  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 John Purcell, Panel Chair, and as Members, Mrs Diana Palmer and Mr David Coats.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

 

  1. By a decision dated 11 June 2007, the Panel accepted the Union's application and, as no agreement was reached on the bargaining unit, subsequently invited both Parties 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 22 August 2007 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision.

 

Summary of the submission made by the Trade Union

 

  1. By way of background the Union explained that in October last year it was approached by a number of members throughout the UK regarding recognition in Cable & Wireless UK Field Services, who informed the Union that non-members throughout the unit were approaching them about joining the Union with a view to gaining recognition.  The Union stated that the majority of employees within Field Services section appeared to be unhappy with the limited nature of the consultation through the Employee Council Forum (ECF).   Since October 2006 the level of Union membership had increased steadily. The Union stated that this provided clear evidence of the workers’ desire amongst Field Services for recognition for collective bargaining.  The Union asserted that the level of Union membership continued to grow despite the Employer withdrawing its plans to outsource a substantial part of UK Field Services. The Union also stated that there been had been no resignations from the Union during that period.

 

  1. The Union stated that its proposed bargaining unit consisted of “all UK Field Service employees (except managers)”.  All workers in the UK Field Services Directorate were employed under Mr Russell Hewitt, Director of Field Services at Cable & Wireless.  The Union submitted that all workers in the proposed bargaining unit were managed as a distinct organisational group under the Director of Field Services, and it therefore comprised an effective and appropriate bargaining unit.

 

  1. The Union stated that it believed its proposed bargaining unit was compatible with effective management because it was defined as a distinct section of Cable & Wireless by the Employer itself.  The Union explained that UK Field Services (except managers) was a defined unit within the Employer’s ECF and this unit was represented by an individual who had been elected by and from workers within UK Field Services.   The Union therefore believed its proposed bargaining unit would not result in small fragmented units within Cable & Wireless.  To substantiate its point the Union informed the Panel of a collective bargaining agreement between Connect and Cable & Wireless Channel Islands.  The agreement covered approximately 250 workers based in Guernsey, and all grades were represented for collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays etc.  The Union contended that the existence of this unit adequately rebuts any argument that its proposed bargaining unit was small, fragmented and not compatible with management.

 

  1. The Union referred the Panel to CAC case Connect and Vodaphone TUR1/564/2007 where the CAC accepted that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit consisting of “all employees working in the Regional Operations North organisation in grades H, I and J” was an appropriate bargaining unit.  The Union contended that this was a bargaining unit with workers spread across sites from the Midlands to Scotland yet the Panel found it was a viable bargaining unit that would not lead to fragmentation.

 

  1. The Union also referred to the CWU’s collective bargaining agreement with Telewest that covered Network Engineers, a copy of which the Union provided with its written submission.  The Union stated that the bargaining unit there was made up of 1200 workers scattered throughout the company and its franchises within the UK.  The Union contended that this was an example of bargaining unit that, although covering only a small proportion of the workforce, was effective as it covered an occupationally distinct group, as in this case.

 

  1. The Union stated that the workers in the proposed bargaining unit shared a commonality and were distinct from other groups of workers in Cable & Wireless in that they worked as Field Engineers or in support functions for the Field Engineers.  The Union stated that the Employer had not at any point informed the Union why it did not believe UK Field Services would be an appropriate bargaining unit, nor had the Employer put forward an alternative bargaining unit for the Union to consider.   The Union stated that it presumed, from the Employer’s written submission, that because of the “one company” culture and ethos the Employer was embracing, the Employer believed the bargaining unit should be company-wide.   The Union contended that all companies aspired to the “one company” culture and ethos, it was a common trend and not unique to Cable and Wireless. In response to the Employer’s position that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would jeopardise operational efficiency, the Union asserted that in theory it could be a problem but in reality it would never agree to working patterns that would jeopardise team working across different directorates.

 

  1. The Union reported that bargaining unit negotiations had been held with the Employer on 6 July 2007 in an attempt to resolve a number of differences and clarify the parameters of the bargaining unit.  The Union explained that it took on board the Employer’s comments at the meeting and as a result it was prepared to accept that the following groups of employees were appropriate to the bargaining unit:

 

·        7 Customer Engineering Managers and 2 Voice & Data Service Managers who worked to Raymond Rogers, Head of Operations, Ireland.

·        2 Programme Managers, who are based in Birmingham, and worked to Kevin Praed, Manager OPS Training.

·        Supplier Relationship Manager, based in Southampton.

·        9 individuals who were on fixed term contracts, but who had now been offered, and had accepted, permanent contracts with the company.

 

  1. The Union explained that it had agreed to the inclusion of those roles even although their title was “manager”. It turned out that they undertook few managerial roles, certainly not those of appraisal, pay determination and discipline.  The Union stated that it had also agreed to include the 9 individuals on fixed term contracts, who were now permanent members of staff.  The Union stated that these clarifications were within the scope of its preferred bargaining unit specified in the original application.
  2. The Union further stated that it disagreed with the Employer on the merits of including the First Line Managers (FLMs) in the bargaining unit.  The Union explained that it had made clear from the start of the process that it did not believe that FLMs should be included in the bargaining unit.  The Union stated that it had consistently communicated this point to its members in the bargaining unit, who were not managers, as well as FLMs within UK Field Services who were Union members. It stated that it had not received any objections to its stance that FLMs should be excluded from either group of members.

 

  1. The Union explained that FLMs in UK Field Services carried out specific managerial functions which could lead to conflicts of interest.  In its view their role and remit could put them in a situation that would present a possible conflict of interest, and such conflicts could jeopardise the interests of team members in the bargaining unit.  For example, FLMs had full responsibility for recommending pay awards and presented pay increases to team members as their own personal decision.  Whilst the Union accepted that they may well be guided by HR, the process involved FLMs input and involvement and was decisive and pivotal to the whole process. 

 

  1. The Union further explained that FLMs also recommended performance ratings for the bonus plan to second line managers.  This recommendation had a direct effect on the level of bonus paid to individual team members.  The Union referred to Appendix 1 attached to its written submission entitled “Cable & Wireless Europe, Asia and USA Bonus Plan 2006/07 – Fast Track Guide for Managers”, in which the Union stated, point 2 outlined “Your responsibilities as a manager” and explained FLMs input in the bonus scheme.  The Union also referred to two further policy documents at Appendix 2 of its written submission entitled “Line Manager and Colleague Guidelines - Disciplinary & Performance Improvement Policy” and “Grievance & Whistle Blowing”.   The Union stated that both policy documents had defined the responsibilities of the FLMs.  The Union stated that FLMs were also responsible for the day-to-day management and guidance of their team members.  To support its argument the Union also relied on a witness statement from Mr John Duffy, Senior Controller NED in Field Services.  He was also the elected delegate for Field Services on the ECF but was unable to attend the hearing.  The Union stated that paragraph 2 of Mr Duffy’s statement demonstrated that the role of an FLM was decisive and that they had full responsibility for determining the pay award and disciplinary and grievance procedures.

 

  1.  In response to the Employer’s assertion that Mr Duffy’s views were out of date, the Union contended that Mr Duffy was a long serving employee who had been consistently elected by his colleagues to represent field service staff on the ECF. As such he was one of the best informed employees about organizational changes and in a good position to comment.

 

  1. The Union further stated that the recent briefing and coaching sessions held by “The Burke Group” for all FLMs also reinforced the difference in the role of FLMs from the rest of the UK Field Services.

 

  1. The Union reported that in an earlier meeting held between the Parties on 30 March 2007 the Employer had asked how a recognition agreement might operate for UK Field Services.  The Union stated that it had informed the Employer that it would establish one branch of the Union solely for Cable & Wireless.  The branch and any forums established would be elected on a “by and from” basis.  Joint training sessions would be held to build a mutual understanding and build partnerships. The Union would also put forward to the Employer a customised recognition agreement.

 

  1. In its closing statement the union stated that it had taken on board the Employer’s concerns that its bargaining unit could be fragmentary but stated that it would work together with the Employer to avoid this. It said that the fact that the field service workforce was dispersed across many locations and co-located with workers from other directorates did not imply fragmentation and incompatibility with effective management.  The bargaining unit of this occupational group could work effectively through the use of technology and by taking a common sense approach.  There were no issues of principle that could not be overcome. The key point was that the field services employees constituted a recognizable occupational group within its own directorate.  The group was relatively stable and while work was shared with other workers in multi-skilled teams working for a dedicated client, it remained distinct.

 

Summary of the submission made by the Employer

 

  1. The Employer submitted at the hearing that the appropriate bargaining unit should be “All employees excluding members of the Executive, Heads of Directorates and their first line reportees”. 

 

  1. The Employer disputed the Union’s reasons for selecting its proposed bargaining unit on the grounds of commonality and distinction from other groups of employees in Cable & Wireless.  The Employer explained that Field Services did not consist of only field engineers, rather it consisted of 243 engineers who worked in the field; 23 "desk-based" engineers who did not work in the field, 102 non-engineers who are desk-based; and two non engineers who were field based.  Field Services did not contain all (or even nearly all) the field engineers employed by Cable & Wireless, as there were field engineers who worked in other directorates.  Field Services contained colleagues who were neither field engineers nor dedicated to supporting them (such as the team of Local Area Network Technical Account Specialists within Field Services).  Those within Field Services who did not work in the field were spread, usually thinly, over 20 locations that spanned the UK.

 

  1. The Employer stated that there was a high degree of interaction between the work carried out by workers within Field Services and the work carried out by colleagues in other parts of Cable & Wireless.  Mr Hewitt explained in his written statement and summarised at the hearing that the two core processes that made up the customer experience within Cable & Wireless were the Provide and Assure processes. Workers within Field Services were involved in, and worked as teams with workers from other directorates throughout the Provide and Assure processes.   The work carried out by many workers within Field Services was very similar to, or the same as, work carried out by workers in other parts of the business.

 

  1. The Employer stated that as established in Mr Hewitt’s statement, it would be incompatible with effective management for there to be collective bargaining solely confined to workers within Field Services when there was a significant number of workers in other parts of Cable & Wireless who worked as part of tight-knit teams with workers from Field Services, or did work that was similar to, or the same as the work carried out by workers within Field Services.  The Employer believed this would lead to a situation whereby colleagues would be working together on the same project, where some would be covered by collective bargaining and others would not.  For example, groups of colleagues who carried out the same or similar work would be split in such a way that some would be covered by collective bargaining arrangements while others would not.  Furthermore, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would cover a relatively broad range of workers, including field engineers, non-engineers and desk-based engineers - many of whom would have much more in common with workers outside of the bargaining unit than some of the workers within it.

 

  1. The Employer stated that a bargaining unit confined to Field Services would compromise the way in which its business worked.   It could lead to further disparities regarding pay, would be bad for morale and would hinder operational efficiency.  The operational efficiency would also suffer if the shift patterns and hours of work of colleagues who worked closely together started to diverge.   It stated that it needed people who worked together to work at the same times and if they did not, customer service would suffer.

 

  1. The Employer explained how rates of pay were determined.  In determining the starting salary for any role a central view was taken based on market benchmarking, recruitment difficulties and pay budget which reflected the centralised approach described in the salary review process. At the salary review further adjustments were made which also factored in the performance rating to determine whether any pay uplift was earned, for example an outstanding performance might merit a 2% uplift only given benchmark relativity. While FLMs were involved in reviewing individual performance the final decision on pay increases, including bonuses, was taken by the HR Director. The Employer also clarified that hours were uniform across the organisation and although there were some changes, their base hours were 37.5.

 

  1. The Employer referred to CAC case CWU & MCI TUR1/482/2005 and stated that it believed the facts of this particular case were strikingly similar to those in this the MCI decision.  In that decision, the Panel held (at paragraph 20) that "We think it is not appropriate in this case, where the Company has invested effort in producing harmonised terms and conditions and a 'team culture', to include some workers doing a particular type of job within collective bargaining arrangements whilst leaving other workers in the same category outside it".   The Employer contended that the same wording could be applied to the current set of facts. Accordingly, by application of the same reasoning used in the MCI decision, a bargaining unit confined to Field Services would be inappropriate.

 

  1. The Employer explained that there was a genuine one company culture and ethos and stated that this was established in Mr Buckley’s (HR Director Cable & Wireless, Europe, Asia, US) written statement. The Employer stated that the single culture and ethos had been a significant factor contributing to the recent success of Cable & Wireless. A bargaining unit confined to Field Services would cut across this single culture and ethos and undermine the work that has been carried to create it. It would therefore be incompatible with effective management.

 

  1. The Employer referred to CAC case Unite – the Union & Kettle Foods Ltd TUR557/2007 and believed the position within Cable & Wireless was very similar to the situation in Kettle Foods, where it was held (at paragraph 27) that: "Collective bargaining for the production operatives alone would in our view be incompatible with effective management since it would cut across the well developed and longstanding One Company approach adopted by the Employer and create division and separateness within the workforce of the Employer which it has successfully eliminated for a decade".

 

  1. Mr Buckley further stated that the union proposal would create a small fragmented bargaining unit spread over different locations and added that Cable & Wireless employed over 4,600 people within the UK. The proposed bargaining unit would therefore consist of less than 7% of Cable & Wireless' UK workforce.  Employees within Field Services were spread over 20 locations throughout the UK - the proposed bargaining unit would result in small, localised pockets where only a very small proportion of employees would have their terms and conditions of employment determined through collective bargaining. Furthermore, if Field Services were held to be an appropriate bargaining unit, then by application of the same reasoning, it would follow that many of the other directorates at the same organisational level as Field Services would be capable of being treated as separate bargaining units. This would be unworkable.  The Employer stated that this was more than a theoretical possibility, and was evidenced by the fact that in late December 2002/early 2003, the CWU sought recognition in respect of its Wythenshawe site in Manchester.

 

  1. The Employer disputed the Union’s claim that the agreement between Connect and the Channel Islands rebuts any argument that that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was small and fragmented and not compatible with effective management.  The Employer stated that it did not understand how the Union would see the bargaining unit covered by this agreement as fragmented when it represented everyone in Guernsey.  The Employer stated that Cable and Wireless was not part of the same business unit, the Guernsey operation was a separate business and the bargaining unit covered all workers except managers.

 

  1. The Employer explained that there was significant movement between directorates at the same organisational level as Field Services and this was due to attempts to improve operational efficiency, and especially to enable Cable & Wireless to adapt to and take advantage of constant and fast-moving technological changes within the telecommunications sector.  The Employer referred to Tab 27 of its written statement “Table showing movement within operations in the last two years” and stated that this showed that there had been large amounts of movement between teams.  Organisational changes had led to some groups of staff being moved out of field services while some 55 individuals had moved into this directorate in the last year.

 

  1. The Employer again referred to CAC case CWU & MCI TUR1/482/2005.  In the Employer’s view the facts of this case were strikingly similar.  It referred to paragraph 21 of that decision which stated, "in the ever-changing industry in which this Company operates we think it is not appropriate to adopt a bargaining unit which does not have some prospect of stability”.  It believed that this passage could be directly applied to the current set of facts, and on the basis of the CAC's decision, the organisational changes within Cable & Wireless had been more far-reaching than those within MCI.

 

  1. The Employer continued that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union excluded all managers. In particular, it had excluded Mr Hewitt, each of his 7 first line reportees (FLRs) as well as 31 Field Operations Managers (referred to as First Line Manager’s FLMs in the Union’s submission), who reported to the FLRs.  It was accepted that it would be appropriate that Mr Hewitt and his FLRs be excluded from any bargaining unit. However, Field Operations Managers, despite their job titles, had more in common with other team colleagues than FLRs.  It referred to a quote in Mr Buckley’s written statement that "they operated as first-line managers, providing team leadership and hands-on guidance".   The Employer asserted that the Union had not given any explanation as to why Field Operations Managers should be excluded from the bargaining unit.   In particular, it was not accepted that there was any conflict of interest between the roles they carried out and them being represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. On the contrary, in discussions held with the Union about their proposed bargaining unit, the Union had been prepared to accept that it would be appropriate to include Field Operations Managers in any bargaining unit as evidenced by Mr Buckley’s statement.

 

  1. The Employer disputed the Union’s claim and as set out in Mr Duffy’s statement that FLMs had full responsibility for determining pay.  The Employer stated that it accepted FLMs were involved in the process of determining pay but everything was done in conjunction with HR and they did not have the authority to make the final decision.  The Employer also clarified for the Panel that up to 25-30% of all recommendations on pay made by the FLMs were amended at a higher level, either the senior management of the directorate or the HR Director.

 

  1. Mr Buckley explained further that there had been too many problems when there was localised decision making in employment matters.  Procedures had now been centralised and all now required his authority.  Any final decision was signed off and authorized by Mr Buckley.   In relation the bonuses, Mr Buckley explained that he was appointed to bring similarity across the business by re-branding and introducing the single bonus scheme.  He explained that FLMs appraised and made recommendations but again, they did not have the final sign off.  Their input was the first phase in quite a lengthy process.  The Company-wide bonus scheme applied to colleagues throughout the business, the budget of which was held by Mr Buckley.  There was no discretion given to FLMs.  Mr Buckley stated that he understood Mr Duffy’s statement but that was how things were within the Company years ago and things were now very different.

 

Considerations

 

  1. The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, to decide whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found to be not appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate.  In deciding an appropriate bargaining unit the Panel must take into account, in accordance with paragraph 19B(2), the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need.  Those matters are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the proposed bargaining unit and of any other employees whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers.  The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “in exercising its functions under this Schedule in any particular case the CAC must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying other provisions of this Schedule in the case concerned”.  This decision has been arrived at after careful consideration of the views of both Parties as expressed in their written submissions and amplified at the hearing.

 

  1. A critical question for the Panel is whether, in accordance with paragraph 19B(2)(a) of the Schedule, a bargaining unit comprising of “employees in UK Field Services (except Managers)” is compatible with effective management.  The panel is mindful of the vital distinction between a bargaining unit which is compatible with effective management and one which is the most effective or most desirable.  In both the written and oral submissions the employer, in effect, compared the proposed bargaining unit with its own desired unit which it considered to be the most effective.  In so doing it did indeed draw attention to some possible problems like changes in pay and shift patterns, which could occur, should the union’s bargaining unit be accepted.  However, while the panel understands this reasoning it notes that it is required to consider whether the proposed union bargaining unit is compatible with effective management, not whether it is the most effective bargaining unit judged by management effectiveness.

 

  1.   The panel also takes the view that it must discount potential problems that may be caused by the outcome of collective bargaining for one group of workers. Should the CWU gain recognition and engage in collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays it is by no means axiomatic that this will lead to differences in terms and conditions with other employees.  We have no doubt that the employer would be vigilant in seeking to avoid such problems.  The panel cannot predict the outcome of any subsequent bargaining especially since bargaining results in an agreement between the parties.  While the size of the overall pay pot in any one year may be determined centrally, as is commonly the case, it would appear that there remains some discretion at directorate level for determining the distribution of pay. This would indicate that collective bargaining could apply at the level of field services.

 

  1. The Panel accepts the Company’s desire to aspire to a one company ethos but it does not see why a group of workers granted collective rights is at odds with the one company ethos.   The Panel has not heard anything that has led it to believe that recognition of the Union would materially get in the way of one company ethos and noted that the company remained organised in directorates, not as a single entity.  Senior directorate management appeared still to have significant authority to manage their areas including high involvement in employment decisions. The fact that some progress had been made toward harmonisation and that ultimate decisions rested with HR Director as a member of the Executive team did not emasculate directorate management.  In the panel’s view a one company ethos is a common aspiration but does not require a single organisational focus.  It is common for employees, for example, to have multiple identities from their workgroup and occupation to the company as a whole.  The Panel does not consider that a one company ethos is incompatible with union recognition, if achieved, in one of the directorates.  Such an arrangement is relatively common in other companies, which also place emphasis on inclusive corporate values.

 

  1. In its submission the Employer had referred to CAC case Unite – the Union & Kettle Foods Ltd TUR557/2007 and believed the position within Cable & Wireless was very similar to the situation in Kettle Foods.  The Panel notes that the company in question was much smaller and operated from a single location. In addition there was a harmonised pay scale. It does not find the comparison informative.

 

  1. The Employer also referred to CAC case CWU & MCI TUR1/482/2005 and stated that it believed the facts of this particular case were strikingly similar to those in this the MCI decision.  By the same token the union drew attention to Connect and Vodaphone TUR1/564/2007. Both cover similar workers in same telecommunications industry but come to very different conclusions about the definition of the bargaining unit.  Panels can only view the facts of the case before them and are not bound, for good reason, by the decisions of earlier panels. Each case is unique with material differences in each. This current case can only be loosely compared with the two drawn to our attention and the decisions taken in these do not influence the decision here one way or the other.

 

  1. The Panel noted the Employer’s argument on the instability of the proposed bargaining unit i.e. that groups of staff had been taken out of Field services in recent years but no groups of workers had moved into the Directorate, only individuals.  The Panel accepts that there may be a reorganisation in the future but the Panel cannot take into account the undefined.   Field Services is a Directorate with its own management team.  It has a section in the ECF with constituents belonging to Field Services electing their own dedicated representative, currently Mr Duffy.  Field Services seems to have been a recognised unit for some time and appears to be more stable than other areas.  It is the Panel’s view that it is a core group with core skills and core identity.   The fact that not all engineers are grouped within field services does not deny this central organisational logic. If it did the company would have changed its structure.  It would appear that within the telecommunications industry field service engineers are generally a recognisable occupational group.

 

  1.  The Panel does not accept the Employer’s argument that the bargaining unit would create a fragmented unit. Fragmentation is not measured numerically as a given proportion of the workforce but in terms of whether a bargaining unit would divide up the workforce into numerous groups prone to compete with each other.  The stability and occupational identity of field service workers, who also have a strong company identity, militates against fragmentation.  The outcome of other groups of workers seeking to gain recognition for their own bargaining unit, should they seek to do so, cannot be predicated by the panel. During the course of the hearing evidence was given of a bargaining unit being extended in another company in the industry as other workers sought recognition.

 

  1.  The Panel recognise the level of interaction of multi-skilled teams working together and the operational necessity for this in order satisfy corporate customer expectations   The Union is clear about what it wants to achieve and how things would work and what it will do if recognised ie. to establish one branch of the Union solely for Cable & Wireless.   The Union stated that the branch and any forums established would be elected on a “by and from” basis.  Joint training sessions would be held to build a mutual understanding and an effective partnership. The Union would also put forward to the Employer a customised recognition agreement. These are laudable aspirations and the panel notes the union’s appreciation of the fast moving nature of the industry and its strong desire not to damage efficiency and effectiveness achieved through multi-skilled, customer dedicated teams.  However, these remain aspirations which the panel cannot rely upon in making its current decision.  Nonetheless, the panel is aware of many examples in both the private and the public sector where different types of workers, each with their own trade union and distinct bargaining unit cooperate closely with each other in customer facing teams.  Examples here are frequently found in aviation and the health sector.  The panel does not accept that union recognition will necessarily inhibit inter-group cooperative team working.

 

  1. Turning the question of whether front line managers should be excluded from the bargaining unit as proposed by the union, or included as required by the company.  It became apparent throughout the hearing that the role of the FLMs in the appraisal of individual performance and the determining pay is crucial given that the company has no job evaluation system, no published pay scales and no agreed across the board pay increases. All pay is individually determined and FLMs are the most significant first step in the process.   In questioning, it appeared that 25-30% of the FLM decisions in determining pay were altered or over-turned at a higher level.  This must mean that in 70-75% of cases it is the FLM who decides a pay award within the parameters of overall budget allocation. For these reasons the panel accepts the union view that FLMs in this company are materially different from the staff they manage and should not be in the same bargaining unit in order to avoid conflicts of interest.  The Panel accepts that the additional staff added to the bargaining unit in July, as enumerated in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, were not managers and are thus covered by the scope of the bargaining unit as specified by the Union. It notes that the short-term contract workers were employees and, as such, would have been included in the original bargaining unit.

 

  1. In the light of these considerations the Panel is satisfied that the bargaining unit proposed by the union is compatible with effective management taking account of   the views of the parties, industry arrangements, the characteristics of the workforce and the desire to avoid fragmentation. The Panel is also satisfied that the requirements of paragraph 171 of the Schedule are met. It finds the union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.    

 

Decision

 

  1. The Panel's decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that specified by the Union in its application, namely for “employees in UK Field Services (except Managers)”.

 

 

 

 

Panel

 

Professor John Purcell

Mrs Diana Palmer

Mr David Coats

 

7 September 2007

Appendix

 

Names of those who attended the hearing:

 

For the Trade Union

 

Mr Peter Morris           –          Telecoms Organising & Recruitment Manager

Chi Metu                      –         Employment Rights Advisor

                                                           

 

For the Employer

 

Bernard Buckley           -           HR Director Cable & Wireless, Europe, Asia, US - key witness

Russ Hewitt                  -           Director of Field Services - key witness

Ian Thomas                   -           Director of Solution Support

Paul Wright                   -           Director of Network Infrastructure and Strategy

Peter Terry-Brown        -           Programme Director, Provide Transformation

Daniel Ornstein             -           Herbert Smith

Peter Frost                    -           Herbert Smith

 

For the CAC

 

Kate Norgate               -           Case Manager