Case Number: TUR1/591/[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 Customer Delivery under the management of UK Operations. This includes all non-management UK employees in the following areas: Installations – Customer Technician & Team Leader; Field Maintenance – Field Maintenance Technician; and, Order Management - Scheduler.”  The locations of the bargaining unit were given as Prince’s Court, 11 Wapping Lane, London E1 9DA and 4 Stephen’s Street, Birmingham B6 4RG.  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 Union’s 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 second 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 55.55% 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 19 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 1 November 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.  On 31 October 2007 the CAC received confirmation that the parties had reached an agreement as to the Union’s 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 26 workers in the bargaining unit, 14 had voted in the ballot; there being no spoilt ballot papers.  Seven (7) workers (50% of those voting) had voted to support the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer and 7 workers (50% of those voting) had voted to reject the proposal.  The proportion of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 26.92%.

 

Declaration that the Union is not entitled to be recognised

 

10.       The ballot establishes that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are not in favour of Union recognition and therefore the Union is not entitled to be recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining.

 

11.       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