Case Number: TUR1/101/(2001)

18 February 2002

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 -COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON THE FORM OF THE BALLOT

The Parties:

GPMU

and

DSR Limited

1ntroduction

1. The Graphical Paper & Media Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 2 August 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Printhaus Graphique Ltd for all employees excluding Directors and Account Executives. 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 which consisted of Professor Gillian Morris, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr M Cann and Ms S R Corby. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Simon Gouldstone.

2. By a decision dated 24 September 2001, the Panel accepted the Union's application. In that decision, the Panel recorded formally that the employer had changed its name from Printhaus Graphique Ltd to DSR Ltd and that the employer should henceforth be referred to as DSR Ltd (the Company) to reflect the change in name. As the parties were unable to agree a bargaining unit, the Panel issued a decision dated 23 November 2001 that determined the appropriate bargaining unit as all employees of DSR Ltd excluding Directors and Account Executives .

3. In a further decision dated 25 January 2002, the Panel stated that, under paragraph 23(1 )(b ) of the Schedule, it was not satisfied that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union and accordingly gave notice, under paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule, that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot. The parties were advised, in a letter from the - Case Manager dated 25 January 2002, that the Panel would wait until the end of the notification I period, as specified in paragraphs 24(2) -(5) of the Schedule, before proceeding with the arrangements. The Parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

4. The notification period described in the preceding paragraph elapsed without the Union, or the Union and the Company jointly, informing the CAC that a ballot was not required.

Issues

5. In deciding the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must, under paragraph 25(5) of the Schedule, take into account the following matters:

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

b) costs and practicality;

c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

6. Furthermore, paragraph 25(6) states that the CAC may not decide that the ballot should be a combination of workplace and postal methods unless there are special factors making such a decision appropriate. Special factors include:

a) factors arising from the location of workers or the nature of their employment;

b) factors put to the CAC by the employer or union.

7. In a letter to the CAC dated 17 January 2002, the Union expressed a preference for a workplace ballot and, in a further letter dated 6 February 2002, proposed that consideration should be given to providing a postal vote to those employees (for example, those on long term sickness absence or shift workers) who might not be on site at the time of the ballot.

8. The Company, in a letter dated 31 January 2002, also expressed a preference for a workplace ballot and, in a letter dated 13 February 2002, proposed that a postal vote should be made available to absent employees.

Considerations

9. The Panel has noted that there is a substantial measure of agreement between the parties about the form the ballot should take. The Panel has carefully considered the parties' views, in the light of the statutory provisions, and endorses the proposal that the ballot should essentially be a workplace ballot. The Panel has also noted that the parties have both expressed the view that postal votes should be made available to those employees who will be absent from the Company's premises on the day of the ballot. The Panel supports that proposal as it may increase the participation rate but does not feel it is practicable to define precisely those employees who would be entitled to a postal vote. A postal vote should therefore be made available to any worker within the bargaining unit where either party informs the Qualified Independent Person no less than one week before the date of the ballot that the worker will be absent on the day of the ballot.

Decision

10. The Panel's decision is that there should be a workplace ballot with the provision of a postal vote for any worker within the bargaining unit where either party informs the Qualified Independent Person no less than one week before the date of the ballot that the worker will be absent on the day of the ballot. The parties will be notified shortly of the name of the Qualified Independent Person and the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Gillian Morris

Mike Cann

Sue Corby

18 February 2002