Number: TUR1/594/2007
14
February 2008
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND
LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER THE
APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING
AGREEMENT
OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
The Parties:
National Union of Journalists
(NUJ)
and
Northcliffe Media Limited (Kent)
Introduction
1. The National Union
of Journalists (the Union) submitted an application to
the CAC dated 3 September 2008
that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Northcliffe
Media Limited (the Employer). The Union’s
proposed bargaining unit was described as “All journalists (except Editor in
Chief) employed at Kent Regional Newspapers Ltd”. The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt
of the application on 4 September 2007. On 13
September 2007 the Employer submitted a response to the CAC, 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 Frank Burchill (Panel Chairman), Mr Bob Hill and Ms Judy McKnight
(Members). The Case Manager appointed to
support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3. By a decision dated 16 October 2007, the Panel accepted
the Union’s application.
The Parties then entered a period of negotiation with the assistance of Acas in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate
bargaining unit. The Employer and the
Union confirmed in writing to the CAC on the 19
and 20 December 2007 respectively, that they had reached an agreement that the
appropriate bargaining unit was “all staff in Editorial, with the
exception of the two Editor in Chief roles, including the following job titles;
Editor, News / Community Ed / Department Head, Sports Editor, Photographer
Reporter, Sub Editor, Designer, Editorial Publishing Co-ordinator”.
Issues
4. Because
the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union in its application, the Panel is required by
paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the
terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.
In a letter dated 21 December 2007 the Case Manager invited both Parties to make
submissions on the matter for consideration by the Panel.
5. In an E-mail dated 4 January 2008 the Union
stated that there were no existing agreements in place and that there was 10%
union membership within the new bargaining unit. It also believed that the majority of the
workers in the new bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition. The Union confirmed
that there was no competing application from another union and that there had
not been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit.
6. In its letter of 6 January 2008, the Employer confirmed that there was no
existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers in the new
bargaining unit, neither was there a competing or previous application that needed
to be considered. However, the Employer did
challenge the Union’s membership levels
and questioned whether the majority of the workers in the new bargaining
unit were likely to favour recognition in the new bargaining unit for the following
reasons:
7. The Union’s application
was made at a time when the business was experiencing a period of uncertainty following
an announcement that the business had been acquired by Northcliffe
Media Limited from their previous owner – Trinity Mirror PLC. Editorial operations under Trinity Mirror Plc
suffered repeated cuts in resources and underinvestment in equipment. At this
time despite the Employer’s communications to the contrary during the TUPE
transfer process, the NUJ painted a picture of bleaker prospects under Northcliffe ownership.
As a result a significant number of staff who expressed support for
recognition decided to leave the business creating further pressure on those
that stayed.
8. The
Employer also explained in some detail how after the transfer had been
completed, promises to invest in the business with new systems and additional
staff and equipment were met. Communication
and consultation had improved by way of monthly Team Briefs, regular team
meetings and dialogue at all levels. A
different culture now existed under Northcliffe Media
Limited.
9. In its view discussions with staff
about NUJ involvement had shown that the implication of recognition was not
fully understood by those staff who had expressed a favourable
preference for this at the time. Since the Union’s
original application for recognition there had been 13 leavers from editorial
in Kent Regional Newspapers representing a sizeable proportion of the overall
department. Furthermore, the joiners who
filled the vacancies had no opportunity to express their preference and it
would therefore be wrong to assume that they support the Union’s
application.
Case Manager’s membership and support check
10. Following the submissions received from
the parties and to assist the determination of the two admissibility tests
under paragraph 45(a) and 45(b) of Schedule A1, namely whether 10% of the
workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the Union and whether a
majority of the workers in this bargaining unit are likely to favour recognition
of the Union, the Panel instructed that the Case Manager carry out checks on
the level of union membership within the bargaining unit and the number of
workers who had signed a petition supporting recognition of the Union.
11. In letters to both Parties dated 11
January 2008, the Case Manager requested that the Employer provided a list of
the workers within the agreed bargaining unit giving their full name, date of
birth, and job title, and that the Union provided a list of its members stating
their full name, date of birth, date of joining, paid up to date and
confirmation of membership status within the agreed bargaining unit, and a copy
of the petition. The Employer provided a
list of 74 workers within the agreed bargaining unit and the Union
provided a list of 27 Union members within its agreed bargaining unit, and a
copy of its petition. Both parties
provided the information on a confidential basis.
12. The
result of the membership check showed that there were 74 workers in the
bargaining unit of whom 23 were members of the Union, giving a membership level of 31.08%. The petition consisted of 50 signatures and
the check showed that it had been signed by 40 workers in the bargaining unit
(54.05%). A report of these results was
circulated to the parties on 6 February 2008 and their comments invited.
Views of the Union
13. In a letter dated 1 February 2008, the Union
informed the CAC that it had agreed with the Employer that a new job title
would be created: “Editorial Publishing Co-ordinator”. These workers were previously not eligible to
join the Union.
The Union had expected the Employer to notify the
staff of the change, however this had not happened and as a result workers
approached by the Union to join the Union
and or sign its petition were puzzled. The
Union believed that more staff would have signed the
petition if the additional workers had been informed by management of the
changes. In light of this the Union
stated that it would like a ballot to be held after it had the opportunity of
addressing all the staff in the bargaining unit. In
response to the Union’s statement, the Employer
confirmed in its e-mail of 6 February
2008 that all members of staff affected by the changes in job role
had been consulted and that their titles had been changed with full support and
agreement.
Views of the Employer
14. In a letter to the CAC dated 1 February 2008 the Employer stated
that it was satisfied that the results of the report supported its previous
assertions that support for recognition was declining. The Employer further stated that whilst it
continued to deal with the complexity of migrating to new systems and
integrating new operations, confidence was improving following its acquisition
of the new business
Considerations
15. The
Panel is satisfied on the evidence available that the application is valid in
terms of the tests laid down in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 49 of the Schedule,
namely that there is no existing recognition agreement in force covering any of
the workers in the determined bargaining unit, that there is no competing
application and that there has been no previous application to the CAC in
respect of the determined bargaining unit.
The remaining tests before the Panel are whether, in accordance with
paragraphs 45(a) and (b) of the Schedule, 10% of the workers constituting the
new bargaining unit are members of the union and that a majority of those
workers would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to
conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
16. With regard to the first test and whether
Union members constitute at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit,
the Case Manager’s check established that 31.08% of the workers in the
bargaining unit were members of the Union. The evidence available before the Panel,
therefore, establishes that at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit
are members of the Union. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the 10%
test set out in paragraph 45(a) is met.
17. The second issue for
the Panel to consider is whether, as required by paragraph 45(b) a majority of
workers constituting the bargaining unit would be likely to favour
recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the
bargaining unit. The Union’s petition was signed by 54.05% of the workers in the bargaining
unit. The Panel is satisfied that in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, the level of support indicated by the
Union’s petition, and the level of union membership provides sufficient
evidence that the majority of workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit
would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as
entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
Decision
18. The
decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of
paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC must proceed with the
application.
Panel
Professor Frank Burchill
Mr Bob Hll
Ms Judy Mcknight
14 February 2008