Case Number:
TUR1/632/[2008]
16 May 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
Synergy Healthcare
Introduction
1. Unite the Union (the Union) submitted
an application to the CAC on 28 April 2008 that it should be recognised for
collective bargaining by Synergy Healthcare (the Employer) for a bargaining
unit comprising “…what the Employer classes as Blue Collar workers, which
includes drivers, stores, cleaning room, production operatives, despatch
workers and team leaders” employed at the Employer’s premises in Mallard Way,
Strathclyde Business Park, Bellshill, Lanarkshire. The CAC gave the parties notice of receipt of
the application on 29 April 2008. The Employer submitted a response to the
application on 8 May 2008
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 Mr Chris Chapman,
Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr David Crowe and Mr Paul Gates. The Case Manager appointed to support the
Panel was Nigel Cookson.
Issues which the Panel has to determine
3. The Panel is required by paragraph 15
of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) 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; is admissible within the terms of
paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule; and therefore should be accepted.
The Union’s
application
4. In its application the Union
stated that it had made a formal request for recognition on 4 April 2008 to which it received no response
from the Employer. It added that prior
to making its formal request the parties had agreed to an Acas audit of Union
membership within the workforce with the intention of reaching a voluntary
agreement. The audit established that almost
60% of the workforce were members of the Union. However, since the audit the Employer had not
been in contact with the Union, hence the application
for statutory recognition.
5. According to the Union
there were 52 workers employed by the Employer with 40 workers in the proposed
bargaining unit. The Union
did not know whether the Employer agreed with the Union’s
estimate as to the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. There were 30 members of the Union
in the proposed bargaining unit and, as evidence that a majority of the workers
were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union
relied upon its membership records and a petition signed by the majority of the
workforce in support of its claim for recognition. The Union offered to
supply both its petition and its membership records to the CAC if so requested.
6. The Union explained
that it had selected the proposed bargaining unit according to the pattern of
its membership and confirmed that the Employer did not agree the composition of
the bargaining unit.
7. Finally, the Union
confirmed that it had not made a previous application for recognition in
respect of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit nor
was there an existing agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed
bargaining unit.
The Employer’s response to the Union’s application
8. In its response to the Union’s
application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s
written request for recognition on approximately 11 April 2008 and that no direct response was made as it
was attempting to agree suitable meeting dates with local management.
9. The Employer confirmed that it received
a copy of the application form on 25 April 2008 and that, prior to receiving a
copy of the application form from the Union, it had verbally agreed the composition
of the bargaining unit with an Acas officer.
10. The Employer confirmed that it employed 52
workers at the Bellshill site and it agreed with the Union
as to its estimate of the number of workers in the proposed bargaining
unit. Although presented with the
opportunity to question the Union’s estimate of its
membership in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer did not comment. Further, when asked to give reasons if it did
not consider that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit
would be likely to support recognition of the Union, the Employer simply
annotated the form ‘n/a’.
11. The Employer indicated that there was no
existing agreement covering any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit
nor was it aware of any previous application by the Union
in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit. Finally, the Employer indicated that it had
not received any other applications for statutory recognition in respect of
workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
Considerations
12. In deciding whether to accept the
application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity
provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied. In reaching its decision the Panel has carefully
considered all the evidence submitted by the parties. The Panel is satisfied that the Union
made a valid request to the Employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5
to 9 of the Schedule to recognise it for collective bargaining in respect of
the proposed bargaining unit as described in paragraph 1 of this decision. The Panel is also satisfied that the
application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs
33 to 35 and 37 to 42 and that it was made in accordance with paragraph 11 of
the Schedule, in that the Employer failed to respond to the Union’s request
before the end of the first period of 10 working days starting with the day
after that on which the Employer received the request for recognition.
13. The remaining issue for the Panel to
address is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the
Schedule are met.
14. In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) 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. The Union
stated in its application that 30 out of the 40 workers in the proposed
bargaining unit were members of the Union, which
expressed as a percentage is 75%. The
reference in the application to membership being approximately 60% would seem
to refer to the workforce as a whole rather than membership within the proposed
bargaining unit. In its response to the
application the Employer, although given the opportunity to challenge this
claim, did not dispute the Union’s figures. The Panel is satisfied therefore that Union
membership exceeds the 10% threshold set by the Schedule.
15. The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether
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. To support its position the Union
relied on its membership and a petition which, it claimed, was signed by a
majority of the workforce. The Employer,
when invited to explain any reasons it may have for disputing the Union’s
claim that a majority of the workers were likely to favour recognition, did not
comment. The Panel therefore assumes
that the Employer’s position indicates agreement with the Union’s
assertion as to its level of support. In
considering the application of this test the Panel finds it persuasive that the
Employer has not challenged either the Union’s estimate as to its membership in
the bargaining unit nor the Union’s claim that a majority of the workers had
indicated, through signing a petition, that they favoured recognition of the
Union. The Panel considers the level of
membership within the proposed bargaining unit to be a legitimate indicator of
the strength of support for the Union and has therefore reached the conclusion
that, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be
likely to favour recognition of the Union and accordingly, the test set out in
paragraph 36(1)(b) is satisfied
Decision
16. The Panel is satisfied that the
application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, is made in
accordance to with paragraph 11 and is admissible within the terms of
paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule. The
application is therefore accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Mr Chris Chapman,
Chairman of the Panel
Mr David Crowe
Mr Paul Gates
16 May 2008