Case Number: TUR1/559(2007)

 

31 October 2007

 

 

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

 

DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

 

Unite the Union

 

and

 

Harrods Limited

 

 

 Introduction

 

1.         Unite the Union, formerly known as Amicus,  (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 9 March 2007 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Harrods Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all engineers employed within the Engineering Department on pay grade Hayes [sic] Point 10 or above.  These engineers are commonly referred to as ‘Green card engineers.’” The stated location of the bargaining unit was “Harrods Limited, 87 - 135 Brompton Road, Knightsbridge, London, SW1X 7XL”.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 9 March 2007.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 21 March 2007 which was then 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 consider the case.  The Panel consisted of Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chairman, and as Members, as Members, Mr. Mike Shepherd and Mr. Keith Sonnet.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah Kendall.

 

3.         By a decision dated 5 April 2007 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. In a letter to the Case Manager dated 11 May 2007 the Employer confirmed that it did not wish to contest the bargaining unit proposed by the Union and that it was content for the application to proceed based on the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  On this basis the Panel regarded the bargaining unit as agreed.

                       

4.         The Union claimed that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were Union members.  The Employer forwarded to the CAC letters/emails from 12 workers within the bargaining unit to the effect that they did not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. A check by the Case Manager showed that ten of 12 letters/emails were from members of the Union and that there were 14 members of the Union within the bargaining unit.  The Panel determined that it had evidence, which it considered to be credible, from a significant number of the Union members within the bargaining unit that they did not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, and in its decision dated 15 June 2007 gave notice to the parties in accordance with paragraph 22(3) of the Schedule that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.  In a letter dated 15 June 2007 the parties were given notice of the ten day notification period and were advised that the Panel would wait until the period had expired, 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 28 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 proceeded with arranging a secret ballot.

 

6.              The Panel issued a further decision dated 10 July 2007 that the ballot should be a postal ballot.  The Panel subsequently directed that Involvement and Participation Association should be appointed as the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) to conduct the ballot.

 

The Ballot

 

7.         The QIP was appointed on 5 September 2007 and the parties were notified accordingly.  The Panel extended the 20 day balloting period by five working days to accommodate the parties’ access agreement in accordance with paragraph 25(3)(b) of Schedule A1. The balloting period started on 6 September 2007   Due to industrial action taken by post office workers during the balloting period the Panel Chairman further extended the ballot period by five working days under the same provision of the Act; the parties and the balloting agent were notified accordingly.  The postal ballot papers were dispatched on 20 September 2007 and the closing date for their return was 17.00 hours on 17 October 2007.

 

8.         The QIP reported to the CAC on 17 October 2007 that, of the 18 workers in the bargaining unit, 14 had voted in the ballot; there were no spoilt ballot papers. Nine workers (64.29% of those voting) had voted to support the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer and five workers (35.71% of those voting) had voted to reject the proposal.  The proportion of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 50%.

 

Declaration that the Union is entitled to be Recognised

 

9.         In accordance with paragraph 29(2) of the Schedule the CAC informed both parties, on 22 October 2007, of the result of the ballot.

 

10.        The ballot established that the majority of the workers voting, and at least 40% of the workers in the bargaining unit, supported the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer for the purposes of collective bargaining within the bargaining unit.  This satisfies the conditions under which the CAC must issue a declaration in favour of recognition in accordance with paragraph 29(3) of the Schedule to the Act.

 

11.        The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit consisting of all engineers employed within the Engineering Department on pay grade Hays Point 10 or above (these engineers are commonly referred to as ‘Green card engineers’).

 

Panel

 

 

Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chairman

 

Mr Mike Shepherd

 

Mr Keith Sonnet

 

 

31 October 2007