Case Number: TUR1/10/00

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:

Transport and General Workers Union

and

Stadium Electrical Components Ltd

Introduction

1. The Transport and General Workers Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 8 October 2000 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Stadium Electrical Components Ltd (the Company) for all hourly paid shop floor employees at the Company’s site at Beeston, Nottingham. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 October 2000. The Company submitted a response to the CAC on 17 October 2000 which was copied to the Union.

2. In accordance with section 263 of the 1992 Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor John Purcell, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr P Gates and Mr K Anthony. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Simon Gouldstone.

The Panel’s Decision

3. The Panel is required by the Act to determine whether the Union’s application to the CAC should be accepted after applying the admissibility tests. In response to the Union’s application, the Company stated that it was not convinced the Union’s application fulfilled the two tests stipulated in paragraph 36 of the Schedule as, firstly, the Union had produced no evidence to support the claimed level of membership and, secondly, a ‘flyer’ produced by the Union was regarded by the Company as inaccurate and biased to such an extent that the Union’s claim in respect of the proportion of the workforce likely to support recognition may have been overstated. The Company offered no evidence to counter the Union’s position on the remaining admissibility tests but the Panel has, nevertheless, considered all the documentation relating to those tests and is satisfied that the Union’s application meets all the statutory criteria.

4. The Union attached to its application to the CAC a petition that we understand was circulated among the Company’s employees in first two weeks of August. The petition asked the employees to sign if they wanted the Union to be recognised by the Company and to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. It was signed by 49 employees and, on the same form, 22 of those employees indicated that they were members of the Union. At the request of the Panel, the Union provided separately a list of members at the Company, which confirmed that 20 of those who signed the petition were currently in membership, and the Company was asked to confirm that the 49 who signed the petition were employees; the Company was satisfied that, with one or two exceptions, they were all current employees. In its application, the Union stated that there were 60 employees in its proposed bargaining unit but the Company informed us that the correct figure was 81.

5. The Panel’s conclusion is that the information summarised in the previous paragraph is sufficient for us to decide that at least 10% of those employed in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union. We are also satisfied, even if we take the Company’s estimate of the number employed in the proposed bargaining unit, that the majority of workers in that unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. The Company asked us to consider the contents of the Union ‘flyer’ as it felt the employees may have signed the petition after being influenced by misleading statements. For example, the ‘flyer’ states, in relation to ACAS, “...Stadium refused to talk to them...”; the Company explained that it had discussed the issue with ACAS but had declined their offer of assistance. We have seen the document in question and we note that the Company felt some of the events to which it refers were misrepresented. Our view, in the light of our industrial relations experience, is that it is the type of newsletter we would expect to see from a trade union when it is seeking recognition and we do not feel it detracts from the significance of the petition.

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

John Purcell

Paul Gates

Ken Anthony

23 October 2000