Case Number: TUR1/195/[2002]

7 August 2002

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:

TSSA

and

Airmiles Travel Promotions Ltd.

Introduction

1. The TSSA (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 12 July 2002 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Airmiles Travel Promotions Ltd (the Company) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising "Part Time Call Centre Operators at Crawley". Crawley referring to the Company's premises at Astral Towers, Betts Way, London Road, Crawley, West Sussex. The Union qualified this choice of bargaining unit on the basis that Part Time Call Centre Operators were a distinct group of staff within the company; that they were based on one site; that they undertook different duties from other staff at this location and that their terms and conditions of employment differed to those of other staff employed at the same location. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 12 July 2002. The Company submitted a response to the CAC on 19 July 2002 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 Professor Roger Rideout, Chairman, and, as Members, Mr. Mike Cann and Ms. Susan Corby. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

Issues

3. 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 8; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore is to be accepted. In its response to the Union's application, the Company stated that it did not agree with the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union and listed three principal objections, which can be paraphrased as: a) the Company employed a total of 391 Call Centre Executives (Operators), all on standard terms and conditions, of which 81 were employed part time but only 43 of these were based at Crawley; b) although the Company is split between two sites (the other being in Warrington) the nature of the work carried out by Call Centre Executives is the same throughout and all such employees ultimately reported to the same manager; and c) the Company had in place a staff consultative committee, "Viewpoint", which represented the views of all Airmiles staff. They maintained that the proposed bargaining unit would be divisive and would be inconsistent with the Company's one team culture, approach and business structure. The Union, by way of letter dated the 24 July 2002, reiterated their belief that the Crawley Call Centre Executives formed a distinct unit within the Company's organisation and that recognition would not in any way inhibit the Company's ability to manage the members of the proposed bargaining unit. However, it must be said that the task of the Panel at this, the first stage of the statutory process, is to decide the admissibility tests in relation to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union. The question of the appropriate bargaining unit is for later determination, if necessary.

4. The Company did not challenge the Union's position on any of the relevant tests referred to above, but when asked if it agreed with the Union's estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit it stated that it had obtained information on an informal basis which suggested that membership within the proposed bargaining unit was significantly less than that claimed by the Union, that a majority of the group did not wish formal recognition of the Union and that membership numbers were actually decreasing with a number of members having recently resigned when they became aware of the Union's application.

5. Having considered the relevant tests the Panel is satisfied that the application is valid. To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely whether 10% of the workers in the Union's proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the employees in the Union's proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition of the trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel requested a check be undertaken by the Case Manager.

Membership Check

6. Both parties agreed that the Company would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names of employees within the Union's proposed bargaining unit and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of union members within that unit, together with the petition referred to in the originating application, 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 arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 22 July 2002 from the Case Manager to both parties.

7. The Case Manager received the information from the Union on 22 July 2002 and the information from the Company was received on 23 July 2002. The Panel is satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. A report of the result of the checks of the membership level was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 26 July 2002 and their comments invited. The Company responded by stating that the figures supplied by the Union, upon which the membership report was based, did not accord with the Company's understanding as to current membership numbers within the proposed bargaining unit. They claimed that a number of employees had informed the Company that it was their intention to resign from union membership as a result of this application. The Company understood that these resignations had been sent to the Union but may not as yet been processed. The Company went on to provide a list of 5 employees that they claimed fell within this category. They went on to state that they did not agree that a majority of employees within the proposed bargaining unit supported recognition of the Union and that this was demonstrated by falling numbers of Union members. The Union was invited to address the issue of "unprocessed resignations" and asked to confirm if they had received letters of resignation that had not been acted upon. The Union provided the Case Manager with a print out, dated 6 August 2002, of all membership withdrawals in the branch since 1 July 2002. This list contained 2 names: the first being that of an Crawley based employee, the second that of a Warrington based employee. However, upon cross referencing with the list provided by the Company it was found that the Crawley based employee was not one that was listed as being in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union confirmed that they had no further letters of resignation that were awaiting processing.

8. The result of the membership check was that there were 21 members of the TSSA within the Union's proposed bargaining unit; a membership level of 48.83%. Accordingly, the test under paragraph 36(1)(a) is satisfied.

9. The second area for the Panel's consideration is paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule which states that the CAC must be satisfied that a majority of the employees constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Union had supplied a copy of the petition referred to in the originating application as evidence towards meeting this test. This petition was headed:

"We, the undersigned, would like to see a change to the way time banking operates. In particular, we feel it is extremely unfair, to expect us to work an extra 15 minutes, or more, before time can be banked. We call on management to introduce a system that allows us to bank all time worked beyond the end of our shift."

The Panel is mindful that this proposition is not one that can be construed as calling for recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining and so has no alternative but to disregard the petition for the purposes of this test.

10. The Panel is satisfied, even excluding the results of the petition, that the level of union membership provides sufficient evidence that the majority of employees constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit and so the test set out in paragraph 36(1)(b) is also satisfied.

Decision

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

Panel

Roger Rideout

Mike Cann

Susan Corby

7 August 2002