Case Number: TUR1/333/(2004)

2 February 2004

 

 

 

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 Salaried Staff Association

 

and

 

First North Western

 

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         Transport Salaried Staff Association (the Union) submitted an application received by the CAC on 12 January 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by First North Western (the Company), for a bargaining unit comprising all FNW Managers (excluding executives) regardless of location.  The Union explained that the location of its proposed bargaining unit was all FNW Trains locations in the UK where Management Grade Staff are based and that this includes Bridgewater House (HQ), Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Victoria, Newton Heath Depot (Manchester), Liverpool Lime Street, Blackpool North, Bolton, Barrow, Wigan and Wilmslow.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 12 January 2004. The Company submitted a response to the CAC on 16 January 2004 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 Ms Mary Stacey, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mrs Jean Johnson and Mr Roger Lyons.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah Kendall.

 

 

3.         The Panel agreed to extend the statutory deadline for deciding whether to accept the Union’s application until 30 January 2004 in order to allow sufficient time for the Panel to consider the matter. The period was further extended until 2 February 2004 for the same purpose.

 

 

Issues

 

4.         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; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule); and therefore should be accepted.

 

 

Considerations

 

5.         The Panel was satisfied that the application was valid and the remaining issue is that of admissibility. The Union is claiming 120 members out of 198 employees in its proposed bargaining unit.  The Company have stated that there are 206 employees working in the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.   Using the Company’s figure for the number of employees within the proposed bargaining unit the level of union membership claimed is 58.25%.  The Company does not hold information on trade union membership but believes that there are managers who are members of the Union (and the other rail industry unions). The Company did not dispute the Union’s membership figures. The Panel concludes that the level of union membership in the proposed bargaining unit constitutes at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule. 

 

 

6.         The Panel must also be satisfied on the balance of probabilities under paragraph 36(1)(b), that a majority of workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Union relied on its membership figures and referred also to a petition it had collected which was signed by a majority of the proposed workforce and included non-Union members. The Company in its response states that it has no opinion whether FNW managers are likely to support recognition. There was no other evidence before the Panel. In light of the unchallenged level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit, together with the suggestion of support for recognition amongst some non-Union workers too, the Panel is satisfied that, under paragraph 36(1)(b), a majority of workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

 

 

7.         The Panel is also satisfied, after considering all the documentation submitted by the parties, that the Union’s application meets the remaining statutory tests. We conclude that neither a CAC conducted check of the Union’s membership, nor a check of the level of support demonstrated by the petition is necessary to reach our conclusion to accept the Union’s application in this case.

 

 

Decision

           

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

 

 

 

Ms Mary Stacey

 

Mrs Jean Johnson

 

Mr Roger Lyons

 

2 February  2004