Case Number: TUR1/593(2007)

27 September 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:

 

GMB

 

and

 

W.S Britland and Co. Limited

 

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         GMB (the Union) submitted an application, dated 24 August 2007, to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by W.S Britland & Co. Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit consisting of “permanent factory based hourly paid production workers” at the Tilmanstone Works, Pike Road Industrial Estate.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 30 August 2007.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 4 September 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 Paul Davies, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr Mike Cann, and Mr Dennis Scard.  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 stated that there were approximately 48 workers in its proposed bargaining unit, 30 of whom were members of the Union. The Union also stated that following consultation with its members it was clear that they would welcome recognition.  The Union further stated that it was relying on the level of membership for support.

 

5.         In its response to the application, the Employer disagreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  It stated that the Company employed approximately 107 workers, of whom 55 were in the proposed bargaining unit.  In response to the Union’s estimate of membership within its proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated that it was unable to comment as the Union had declined to participate in a membership audit to be conducted by Acas.  The Employer further stated that it did not consider that a majority of workers was likely to support recognition

 

Membership check

 

6.         To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition of the trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed a confidential check be undertaken by the Case Manager. In letters to both Parties dated 10 September 2007, the Case Manager requested that the Employer provide a list of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit and that the Union provide a list of its members within the proposed bargaining unit. The Case Manager’s letter confirmed that the lists would not be copied to the other Party or the Panel. The Employer provided a list of 46 workers it stated were within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the Union provided a list of 24 Union members it stated were within its proposed bargaining unit.

 

7.         The membership check showed that there were 12 Union members within the proposed bargaining unit of 46, establishing a membership level of 26.08%.  A report of the result of the check of the membership level was circulated to the Parties on 20 September 2007.

 

Views of the Employer

 

8.         In a letter dated 22 September 2007 the Employer stated that whilst it accepted, on the basis of the membership check, that the Union’s membership constituted at least 10% of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit, it was of the view that only a minority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. The Employer stated that it therefore believed the Union was unable to satisfy the test set out in paragraph 36(1)(b).

 

Views of the Union

 

9.         By an e-mail dated 25 September 2007 the Union stated that assuming the information provided by the Employer was correct, it must agree with the proportion of union membership as shown in the membership report.

 

 

 

 

Considerations

 

The Panel is satisfied, after full consideration of all the documentation submitted by the Parties, that the Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, was made in accordance with paragraph 11 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of Schedule A1.

 

11.       In relation to membership and support, the Panel is required to decide, firstly, whether under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule, members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit and, secondly, whether under paragraph 36(1)(b) a majority of the workers constituting 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. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both Parties and the supporting documentation.

 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

 

12.       The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s level of membership established that 12 of the 46 workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union (26.08%).  The Employer has not disputed that the members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the proposed bargaining unit. The Panel is therefore satisfied that in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a), the 10% test is met.

 

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

 

13.       The Union did not provide any supplementary evidence, for example some clear expression of support for its recognition by non-members of the Union, to suggest the majority of workers from within the proposed bargaining unit would support it. In light of the level of union membership demonstrated by the Case Manager’s report, the Panel is not satisfied a majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

Decision

 

14.       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not accepted by the CAC.

 

Professor Paul Davies

Mr Mike Cann

Mr Dennis Scard

 

27 September 2007