Case Number TUR1/618/(2008)

13 March 2008

 

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

 

Unite the Union

 

 

and

 

 

GSI Group Limited

 


Introduction

 

1.        Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC, dated 14 February 2008, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by GSI Group Limited (the Employer), in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Production employees”.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 14 Februatu 2008.  On 21 February 2008 the Employer submitted a response to the CAC, which was 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 Paul Davies (Panel Chair), Mr Simon Faiers and Ms Bronwyn McKennna (Members).  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3.         The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 28 February 2008. The period was extended until 12 March 2008 in order to allow time for a membership and support check to be carried out by the Case Manager, for the Parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the evidence and reach a decision.

 

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.

 

The Union’s application

 

5.         In its application the Union stated that there were approximately 22 workers in its proposed bargaining unit, 19 of whom were members of the Union. It also stated that 86% of the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union and this demonstrated the workers desire for union recognition. 

 

The Employer’s response

 

6.         In its response to the application, the Employer disagreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the number the Union had stated were in the proposed bargaining unit.  It stated that the Company employed approximately 29 workers, of whom 22 were in the proposed bargaining unit, although it stated it was unclear which workers the Union had included. 

 

7.         In response to the Union’s estimate of membership and likely support for recognition in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer stated its records differed to the Union’s.  It stated that following a review of its payroll records it believed there were 16 Union members within the proposed bargaining unit. 

8.         The Employer explained that following receipt of the Union’s application, it had received representations from a number of employees who objected to the Union’s application.  The Employer stated that it therefore carried out a confidential poll of its employees whereby they were asked whether or not they were in favour of trade union recognition that would lead to collective bargaining arrangements.  The Employer explained the outcome of the poll and stated if required the results could be provided to the CAC on a confidential basis. 

 

9.         The Employer did not contend that the Union’s application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or validity criteria in the Schedule.

 

Membership check

 

10.       To assist the determination of whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition of the trade Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed a confidential check to be undertaken by the Case Manager. 

 

11.       In letters to both Parties dated 27 February 2008, the Case Manager requested that the Employer provide a list of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit giving their full name, date of birth and job titles, and that the Union provide 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 proposed bargaining unit, and a copy of the petition.  The Employer provided a list of 16 workers it stated were within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the Union provided a list of 18 Union members it stated were within its proposed bargaining unit.  Both Parties provided the information on a confidential basis.  

 

12.       The membership check showed that there were 13 Union members within the proposed bargaining unit of 16, establishing a membership level of 81.25%.  A report of the results of the membership was circulated to the Parties for their comments on 29 February 2008.

 

Summary of the Parties’ comments

 

13.       By a letter dated 5 March 2008 the Employer stated that whilst it was content for the Panel to accept the application following the outcome of the membership check, it wished to reserve the right to make further representations on the proposed bargaining unit, and why recognition should not be declared without a ballot. 

 

14.       By a letter dated 6 March 2008 the Union stated that it had noted the level of Union membership in the proposed bargaining unit was 81.25% and it had therefore met the first test.  It further asked that the Panel apply its industrial relations experience and accept the high membership density as a strong indication that a majority of workers within the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition.

 

Considerations

 

15.        The Panel is satisfied on this evidence that the Union had made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraph 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 12.  Furthermore, on the evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied that this application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. 

 

15.       The remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criteria of paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.  In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Schedule the Panel must determine whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and whether a majority of the workers constituting the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

 

11.       The Panel finds that in considering the evidence submitted by the Parties and the results of the membership check, the criteria of paragraph 36(1)(a) is satisfied as the figures established that 81.25% of the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union.  Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the 10% test is met.

 

16.       According to paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, the Panel must assess whether a majority of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.  The Panel is satisfied that this admissibility criterion has been met for the following reasons:

 

17.       The Panel views membership of a Union, where there is no evidence to the contrary, as indicative of likely support for collective bargaining by the Union in relation to the member's employer.  The membership check produced by the Case Manager showed that 13 (81.25%) of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union.  In its letter of 5 March 2008 the Employer explicitly stated that it did not oppose acceptance of the Union’s application.   The Panel is satisfied that, on the evidence before it, a majority of workers within the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union, and therefore the admissibility test at paragraph 36 (1)(b) is also met.  The Panel, having considered all the other tests, is satisfied that these are also met.

 

18.       In addition, the Panel is satisfied, after considering all the documentation submitted by the Parties, that the Union’s application meets the remaining statutory tests.

 

Decision

 

19.        For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

 

Panel

Professor Paul Davies

Ms Bronwyn McKenna

Mr Simon Faiers

 

13 March 2008