Case Number: TUR1/638/(2008)

07 July 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:

 

National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

 

and

 

City A.M

 

Introduction

 

1.         The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application dated 29 May 2008 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by the City A.M (the Employer) for a bargaining unit constituting “all journalists employed at City A.M.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 3 June 2008.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 9 June 2008 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 deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Ms Mary Stacey, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr Mike Cann and Ms Judy McKnight.  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 16 June 2008. The period was extended to 8 July 2008for clarification by the Union of the proposed bargaining unit and in order to allow more time for the Panel to consider and reach a decision.

 

Issues

 

4.         The Panel is required by 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; 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 25 workers in its proposed bargaining unit, of whom 20 were Union members.  The Union also stated that if required it could provide to the CAC a list of members as evidence to demonstrate that a majority of the workers supported recognition for collective bargaining.  

 

6.         In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that although it was unsure of exactly how the Union had defined “journalists”, if its interpretation was correct, it believed there were 24 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.     The Employer further stated that it was also unable to comment on whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit as it had always considered this to be a personal matter for employees and it had therefore never asked employees whether or not they were members of the Union. 

 

7.         The Employer explained why it did not consider a majority of the workers were likely to support recognition.  The Company had been operating for just under 3 years and during this time staff had never sought collective bargaining or raised individual or collective grievances regarding the Company’s approach to negotiating on pay, hours, and holidays.  Nor had the Company ever been approached by any employees regarding setting up bargaining units or any other related issues.

 

8.         The Employer believed this was because it had tried to build up an informal culture based upon meritocracy with a minimum of formal paperwork.  The Employer stated that this had resulted in basic salary and holiday arrangements that compared favourably within the daily newspaper sector.  The vast majority of staff had given the impression that they preferred the way the Company was run rather than that of a more traditional, formal organisation.  The Employer stated that it would therefore be very surprised if a majority of the workers within its team of journalists supported recognition of the Union.

 

9.         The Employer further stated that it had not been provided with the list of Union members as referred to in the Union’s application, nor had it received any communications from workers that suggested there was active support for recognition of the Union.  For example, the Union had not submitted a petition of its members that indicated their signed agreement to a request from the Union that the Union should be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays.   The Employer did not contend that the Union’s application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or validity criteria in the Schedule.

 

10.       By a letter dated 18 June 2008 the Panel invited the Union to clarify its proposed bargaining unit.   By a letter dated 19 June 2008 the Union stated that its proposed bargaining unit included the members of the Photo and Design Departments and all heads of department as set out in the Employer’s response but excluded the Deputy Director.

 

Consideration

 

11.       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. 

 

12.       The remaining issue for the Panel to address then is whether the admissibility criteria of paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.

 

13.       Paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule provides that the CAC must be satisfied that at least 10% of the bargaining unit are members of the Union.  In its application, the Union stated that it has 20 members out of a bargaining unit of 25 workers, this constitutes a membership level of 80%. The Employer did not agree or disagree with the number of Union members stated in the Union’s application as it stated it considered membership of a union to be a personal matter for employees. The Panel notes that the Employer did however acknowledge that it is a common feature for journalists to join the Union.  The Panel is therefore satisfied that, on the evidence before it, the level of union membership is in excess of 10%, and the admissibility test at paragraph 36 (1)(b) is met.

 

            14.                   Paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule provides that, for an application to be admissible, the CAC must be satisfied that 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.  In this case the Union asserts that 80% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, membership of a union can be taken as indicating support for collective bargaining by the Union in question.   The individuals concerned have taken active steps to join the Union and pay membership dues. Given the Union’s well publicised and vocal support for collective bargaining in the print media, we accept, in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the membership of the Union denotes likely support for recognition. That individuals have not raised matters directly with management or discussed their Union membership with management, does not suggest lack of support for trade union recognition.

 

            15.                   Our task, at this stage in the proceedings, is to decide likely, not actual majority support for Union recognition, and to do so within a reasonably short period of time if possible in accordance with the time limits set out in the Schedule. We consider this to be a light touch exercise, and on the basis of the information currently before us, the Panel is satisfied that the majority of workers in 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 in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

 

Decision

 

16.       For the reasons given above, the Panel is satisfied that the application is valid within

the terms of paragraphs 36(1)(a) and 36(1)(b) of Schedule A1.  The Panel is also satisfied that the application 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.  The application is therefore accepted by the CAC.

 

Panel              

Ms Mary Stacey

Mr Mike Cann

Ms Judy McKnight

07 July 2008