Case Number:
TUR1/604/ (2007)
CENTRAL
ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION
The Parties:
Unite the
and
Central Radio Taxis (Tollcross) Ltd
Introduction
1. Unite the Union (the Union) submitted
an application to the CAC, dated 18 October 2007, that it should be recognised
for collective bargaining purposes by Central Radio Taxis (Tollcross) Ltd (the
Employer). In its application the
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 Kenny Miller as Chairman of the Panel and Mr Dennis Cameron and Mrs
Maureen Shaw as Members of the Panel.
The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.
3. The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case on
three occasions. The initial statutory period expired on
Issues
4. The Panel is required, by paragraph 15
of Schedule A1 to 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 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42
of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore should be accepted.
5. In its application the Union stated
that there were 52 workers in its proposed bargaining unit, 30 of whom were
members of the Union. It also stated that a voluntary agreement which had been
in place since
The Employer’s response
6. In its response to the application, the
Employer disagreed with the
7. In response to the Union’s estimate of the level of membership
within the proposed bargaining unit and likely support for recognition in that
unit, the Employer stated that the Union’s estimate was wrong as there had been
no grievances from employees where trade union representation had been
particularly sought, particularly after a pay award was implemented during
October toward which the Union did not have any input.
8. The Employer’s response to the application was copied to the
Union who then replied to the CAC on 14 November 2007 stating its concern that
the figure of 59 mentioned by the Employer to be the size of the proposed
bargaining unit had included workers from the management team and the I.T.
Department which included staff employed by “Westminster Insurance”, a wholly
owned subsidiary of “Central Radio Taxis”.
The
9. The Employer stated in its reply that an I.T. Department did
not exist and that staff in the insurance agency were direct employees of
Central Taxis and not Westminster Insurance.
In its view the calculation of staff numbers should not be based on a
past agreement as there had been an increased level of management in all areas
of the business. Finally the Employer fundamentally
disagreed with the
Membership Check
10. To assist in the determination of the
admissibility criteria specified by Paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, the Panel requested
that an independent check of union membership in the proposed bargaining unit
should be conducted by the Case Manager
11. A list of workers in the proposed
bargaining unit was provided by the Employer on the
12. The Employer provided a list of 48
names. The
13. The Union submitted a
response to the CAC by an e-mail dated 14 December 2007 in which it expressed
concern over the 8 members who had not appeared on the Employer’s list of
workers and also asserted that it wished to continue to push for recognition and
that a work place ballot would resolve the issue.
Employer’s Comments
14. In a letter dated
15. The Employer also stated that it did not
agree with the bargaining unit identified by the
16. However
as the issue of the constitution of the proposed bargaining unit was raised by
the parties the Panel were mindful that the categories of workers covered by
any previous voluntary agreement and any membership levels that were
established at that time are of no consequence to the question of the validity
of the current application and whether it should be accepted. The issue for the Panel is to determine whether
the current application and therefore the bargaining unit as proposed and
expressed in that application by the
Considerations
17. Turning then to the membership check
carried out for the purposes of the current application, 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)
18. The
Case Manager’s check of the
Paragraph
36(1)(b)
19. For the Panel to accept the application, the Schedule does
not require that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit be already
members of the union, nor does it require that a majority of those in the
bargaining unit has explicitly expressed support for the union. Paragraph
36(1)(b) requires the Panel to decide whether the majority of workers in the
bargaining unit as defined by the
20. Further, on the basis of its experience and expertise in the
forum of industrial relations, the Panel considers that it is more likely than
not, that to be a member of a union is indicative of that individual’s wish for
the union to be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining issues
on his/her behalf.
21. Taking into account the Case Manager’s
check of the
22. Given the level of union membership and
in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the
majority of the workers would be likely to favour recognition of the
23. After full consideration of all the
documentation submitted by the parties, the Panel is also satisfied that the
Decision
23. For
the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is
accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Professor
Kenny Miller – Chairman of the Panel
Mr Dennis
Cameron
Mrs Maureen Shaw