Case Number: TUR1/101/(2001)

Case Number: TUR1/101/(2001) 25 January 2002

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO HOLD A BALLOT

The Parties:

Graphical Paper & Media Union

and

DSR Ltd

Introduction

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 letter dated 23 November 2001, the Case Manager invited the parties' representations on whether, in accordance with paragraphs 22 and 23 of Schedule A1 to the Act, the Panel should issue a declaration that the union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit or whether a secret ballot should be held. The Union responded on 28 November 2001 and the Company on 30 November 2001.

Issues

4. The Union's response was that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union and that the Panel should issue a declaration of recognition. The Company's response was that the Union was basing its membership level on a check undertaken by ACAS in April 2001, the conduct of which the Company regarded as irregular, and that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.

5. In order to determine the Union's membership level, the Panel proposed a check to be undertaken by the Case Manager of the level of Union membership within the bargaining unit. Both parties agreed that the Company would supply, to the Case Manager, a list of the names of workers within the bargaining unit (giving each person's job title and date of joining the Company) and that the Union would supply, to the Case Manager, a list of Union members within that unit (giving each person's membership number, date of joining, membership category, method of payment, date of last subscription and whether subscription payments were up-to-date) to enable a comparison to be undertaken. It was explicitly agreed with the parties that, to preserve confidentiality, neither list would be copied to the other party. The agreed arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 3 January 2002 from the Case Manager to both parties. The information was received from both parties on 8 January 2002. The results of the check of the membership level were circulated to the Panel and the parties on 9 January 2002. The Panel is satisfied that the membership check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

6. The report on the membership check showed that there were 73 workers in the bargaining unit, in the following departments: Admin, Estimating, Group Sales, Prepress, Litho, Screen, Finishing and Fwd; of those, 31 were union members giving a membership level of 42.5%. The Company submitted no comments on the check. The Union, however, submitted a response that the Company appeared to have included in the bargaining unit workers who should have been excluded, namely those employed in the functions: Admin, Estimating and Group Sales. The Union stated that it had always intended to include in the bargaining unit only those workers specifically involved in the manufacturing process and that it had understood that those employed outside that process did not work at the Company's location. That had been the Union's understanding from the date it had made its original request for recognition and the time ACAS membership check had been conducted. The Union suggested that the Company had, in some way, changed the profile of the bargaining unit.

7. The Panel's responsibility, at this stage in the statutory process, is to decide whether a majority of workers in the bargaining unit are Union members. If there is a majority, the Panel can issue a declaration of recognition provided none of the qualifying conditions stipulated in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. If there is no majority, a ballot must be held.

8. The Panel determined the appropriate bargaining unit after receiving written statements of case from the parties and holding a hearing at which the parties amplified their submissions. The decision dated 23 November 2001 summarises the evidence and information with which the Panel was provided. The bargaining unit determined by the Panel was the same as that sought by the Union in its application to the CAC, namely all employees of DSR Ltd excluding Directors and Account Executives, and at no time during the process did the Union suggest that any staff other than Directors and Account Executives should be excluded. The Panel has no grounds for believing that the information supplied by the Company to the Case Manager was compiled in any way other than in accordance with the definition of the bargaining unit determined by the Panel. The Panel therefore accepts that the Union's membership level was calculated by the Case Manager on the basis of correct information from both parties.

9. The Panel, under paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule, has to be satisfied that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. For the reasons given in paragraphs 6 to 8 above, the Panel is not satisfied that a majority of workers are members of the Union and accordingly determines that it intends to arrange for the holding of ballot in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule.

Decision

10. The Panel's decision is that it intends to arrange for the holding of a ballot and hereby gives the parties notice under paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule.

Panel Members

Gillian Morris

Mike Cann

Sue Corby

25 January 2002