Case Number:
TUR1/590/[2007]
6 December 2007
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT
1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS NOT
ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED
The Parties:
The Communications
Workers Union (CWU)
and
COLT Telecom Group
PLC
Introduction
1. The CWU (the Union) submitted an
application dated 17 August 2007 to the CAC that it should be recognised for
collective bargaining by COLT Telecom Group PLC (the Employer) for a bargaining
unit comprising All UK employees (excluding management) who work for Service
Fulfilment under the management of UK Operations. This includes all
non-management UK
employees in the following areas: BWDC/Config Provisioning Technician; Co
op/Config BWDC Technician and Senior Technician (Technical); and, Switching
Data Engineer and Switch Data Engineer.
The location of the bargaining unit was given as Beaufort House, 15
St Botolph St, London EC3A
7QN.
The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 20 August 2007. The Employer submitted a response on 29 August 2007 which was duly 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 Ms Mary Stacey,
Chairman, and, as Members, Mr Rod Hastie and Lord Lea of Crondall OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the
Panel was Nigel Cookson.
3. In a decision promulgated 14 September 2007 the Panel accepted
the Unions application.
This application was one brought under paragraph 12(4) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) in
that the parties had agreed a bargaining unit before the end of the second
period as defined by paragraph 10(7) but had not agreed that the Union was to
be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the
agreed bargaining unit. The Panel,
therefore, moved straight on to decide whether it was satisfied that a majority
of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union.
This is the first of three applications brought by the Union
against the same Employer for differing bargaining units.
4. The Panel, having considered the views
put forward by the parties, directed that the
Case Manager conduct a check of Union membership in the agreed bargaining unit.
This check was conducted on 24 September 2007 and established that 58.33% of the workers therein were
in membership. However, having taken
account of the subsequent submissions of both parties and the evidence
provided, the Panel found that one of the qualifying conditions for the holding
of a secret ballot set out in paragraph 22(4)(b) was met and accordingly gave
notice to the parties on 18 October 2007 pursuant to paragraph 23(3) of the
Schedule that it intended to arrange for a secret ballot in which the workers
constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union
to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.
5. 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) of the
Schedule, before arranging a secret ballot.
Further, the parties were invited
to submit to the Panel their views on the form of ballot namely whether it
should be a workplace or postal ballot or a combination of these two methods.
6. The
notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 31 October 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).
Ballot
7. The parties agreed on the type of
ballot to be conducted and so, in a letter to the parties dated 29 October 2007, the Panel gave
notice of its decision, in accordance with paragraph 25(4) of Schedule A1, that
the ballot should be postal ballot. On 31 October 2007 the CAC received
confirmation that the parties had reached an agreement as to the Unions
access during the balloting period. The
Panel subsequently directed that IPA be appointed as the QIP to conduct the
ballot.
8. The QIP was appointed on 2 November 2007 and the parties were
notified accordingly. Ballot papers were
sent to eligible workers on 19 November
2007 with the last date for the return of ballot papers being 30 November 2007.
9. The QIP reported to the CAC on 30 November 2007 that of the 23
workers in the bargaining unit, 8 had voted in the ballot; there being no
spoilt ballot papers. Five (5) workers (62.5%
of those voting) had voted to support the proposal that the Union
should be recognised by the Employer and 3 workers (37.5% of those voting) had
voted to reject the proposal. The
proportion of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the
proposal was 21.74%.
Declaration that the Union is not entitled to be recognised
10. In accordance with paragraph 29(2) of the
Schedule the CAC informed both parties of the result of the ballot.
11. Paragraph 29(3) of the Schedule directs
that if the result of the secret ballot is that the Union is supported by a
majority of the workers voting and that the Union is supported by at least 40%
of the workers constituting the bargaining unit, then the CAC must issue a
declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective
bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
12. The ballot did not establish that at
least 40% of the workers in the bargaining unit supported the proposal that the
Union be recognised by the Employer for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the bargaining unit.
13. In accordance with paragraph 29(4) of the
Schedule, the CAC declares that the Union is not
recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on
behalf of the bargaining unit.
Panel
Ms
Mary Stacey, Chairman
Mr
Rod Hastie
Lord
Lea of Crondall OBE
6 December
2007