TUR1/252/(2003)
20 May 2003
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT
1992
SCHEDULE A1 – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
The parties:
GMB
and
Eddie Stobart Ltd
Introduction
1. GMB
(the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 4 March 2003 that it
should be recognised for collective bargaining by Eddie Stobart Ltd (the
Company) for a bargaining unit consisting of all workers employed by the
Company in warehouse and despatch at Carnaud Metal Box Bevcan plc, Borland
Avenue, Botcherby, Carlisle. The CAC
gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 6 March 2003.
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 Linda Dickens, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr D Cameron and
Mrs M Shaw. The Case Manager appointed
to support the Panel was Roshan Kamall.
3. By
a decision dated 9 April 2003, the Panel decided that the Union’s application
should be accepted by the CAC. That
document recorded that the Panel had had to make its decision in the absence of
any evidence or representations from the Company. On 9 April 2003, the Case Manager wrote to
the Union, and to the Company’s Managing Director and HR Manager, to explain
the legislative provisions relating to the agreement on, or determination of,
the appropriate bargaining unit. The
letters to the Company were sent by recorded delivery.
4. On
14 April 2003, the Company’s HR Manager sent an e-mail to the Case
Manager. Attached to the e-mail was a
completed response form, originally sent to the Company on 6 March 2003. In the e-mail, the Company included the
statement “You will note from our Response Form, that we do not object to the
application, and will be in contact with the Acas office in Newcastle upon
Tyne, for assistance in the next stages of the process”. The Company further stated, on the response
form, that it agreed the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.
5. On
28 April 2003, the Union wrote to the Case Manager to say that it had had no
contact from Acas and requested the CAC to declare recognition without a
ballot. The Case Manager wrote to the
Company on 30 April 2003, attaching a copy of the Union’s letter, to invite it
to submit representations, in accordance with paragraphs 22(4)(a) to (c) of the
Schedule, on whether or not a ballot should be held. The Case Manager asked for a reply by 6 May
2003. As no reply was received to that
letter, the Panel instructed the Case Manager to write to both parties, on 7
May 2003, to inform them that the Panel would proceed to issue a declaration of
recognition. Although that letter did
not specifically request a reply, the Company did not submit an oral or written
response.
Considerations
6. Paragraph
22(2) of the Schedule requires the CAC to issue a declaration that the Union is
recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the
workers constituting the bargaining unit if it is satisfied that a majority of
the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the applicant
union, unless any of the three qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) are
fulfilled. If any of those conditions
are met, or if the CAC is not satisfied that a majority of workers in the
bargaining unit are members of the union, the CAC must give notice to the
parties that it intends to hold a ballot.
7. In
its acceptance decision of 9 April 2003, the Panel noted that the Union had
stated that there were 22 members in a proposed bargaining unit of 32 workers,
a membership level of 68.75%. In its
response form, not received by the CAC until 14 April 2003, the Company stated
that there were 37 workers in the bargaining unit. The Union subsequently notified the Case
Manager that it had recruited a further four members since the application was
originally submitted. Those changes have
only a marginal effect on the level of membership and it may in fact have
increased to about 70%. The Company has
at no time contested the level of union membership. The Panel is accordingly satisfied, in
accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of workers
constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union.
8. The
second issue for the Panel to consider is whether a ballot should be held
despite the level of union membership.
The Panel has received no representations from any source that a ballot
should be held. In particular, the Panel
is satisfied that the Company was given sufficient opportunity to make its
views known. Accordingly, the Panel’s
decision is that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is
fulfilled.
9. The
CAC declares that the Union is recognised by the Company as entitled to conduct
collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit
specified in paragraph 1 of this decision.
Linda Dickens
Dennis Cameron
Maureen Shaw
20 May 2003