Case Number: TUR1/616/(2008)

9 June 2008

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

The Parties:

GMB

and

East Riding Sacks Ltd

Introduction

1. GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 15 January 2008 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by East Riding Sacks Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Permanent Operatives in the following departments:- Sewing Department, Printing Department, Warehouse Department, New Factory, Old Factory, Transport Department, Maintenance Department, including Supervisors and Team Leaders all of whom work at the Full Sutton Industrial Estate site” which referred to the Employer’s premises in Stamford Bridge, York. The CAC gave the parties notice of receipt of the application on 21 January 2008. The Employer submitted a response to the application on 29 January 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, Ms Virginia Branney and Mr John Rugman. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

3. By its written decision dated 25 February 2008 the Panel accepted the Union’s application and the parties entered a period of 20 working days, the ‘appropriate period’ in accordance with paragraph 18(2)(a) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule), within which to negotiate and try to reach agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit.

4. In a letter dated 14 April 2008 endorsed by both parties the terms of the agreed bargaining unit were set out. This bargaining unit was defined as:

“all permanent operatives in the following departments :-Sewing department, Printing Department, Warehouse, New Factory, Old Factory, Transport division, Engineering/Maintenance department and computer department including Supervisors, Managers and Team Leaders (whether salaried or hourly paid)".

5. When questioned as to whether the agreed bargaining unit differed to that originally proposed, the Union, in an email to the CAC dated 24 April 2008, stated that it was substantially the same except for the inclusion of salaried managers and supervisors and a reference to the computer department.

6. As the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union the Panel was required by paragraph 20 of the Schedule to determine whether the Union’s application was valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50. To this end both parties were invited to supply the Panel with written submissions relating to the validity tests.

7. By a decision dated 20 May 2008 the Panel determined that the application was valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 and that the CAC would therefore proceed with the application.

Issues

8. On 23 May 2008, the Panel, satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) that a secret ballot would be held. 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), before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

9. The notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 6 June 2008. The CAC was not notified by the Union or by both parties jointly that they did not want the ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2).

Union’s submissions on the form of ballot

10. In an email dated 29 May 2008 the Union simply said that, having discussed all options, it would wish for a full postal ballot as this would cover all of the workers employed by the Company.

Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

11. In an email dated 30 May 2008 the Employer expressed a preference for a combination ballot. It had arrived at this conclusion on the basis that there were two distinct classes of worker in the bargaining unit; the normal day worker and Shift workers under a three shift system. The Employer envisaged a workplace ballot for the normal day workers and shift workers that were on site during the day of the ballot with a postal element for those shift workers not on site that day. It explained that, depending on the timing of the ballot and the pattern of the shift system, there could be a gap of several days before a shift was on site.

Considerations

12. When determining the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:

(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;

(b) costs and practicality;

13. The parties have put forward two different types of ballot for the Panel to consider. The Union has argued for a postal ballot whereas the Employer has submitted that the ballot should be a workplace ballot with a postal element for those shift workers not present on the day of the workplace ballot.

14. The Panel, having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, has decided that, on the grounds of practicality and cost, the appropriate form of ballot in the circumstances would be a postal ballot. First, given the shift patterns referred to by the Employer it would be far more practical to conduct a postal ballot than a workplace ballot and secondly, it would be more expensive to hold a workplace ballot than a fully postal ballot. Additionally, the Panel takes the view that a postal ballot allows workers to arrive at a decision in a neutral environment away from the workplace without the possible danger of undue influence from either party.

Decision

15. The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.

16. The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Panel

Mr Chris Chapman

Ms Virginia Branney

Mr John Rugman

9 June 2008