Case Number: TUR1/333/(2004)
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
The Parties:
Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association
and
First
North Western
Introduction
1. The Transport Salaried Staffs’
Association (the
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 Miss Sarah Kendall.
3. By a decision dated
4. Following the agreement of the
appropriate bargaining unit the Panel instructed the Case Manager to ascertain
whether the Union claimed that it had a majority of the workers in the
bargaining unit as its members and, if so, to seek the parties’ views as to
whether or not a ballot should be held. Schedule A1 to the Act provides that
where the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the
bargaining unit are members of the
i) the CAC is
satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial
relations;
ii) a significant number of the union members within the
bargaining unit inform the CAC that they
do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;
iii) membership
evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts
whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit
want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.
5. In a response of
Membership check
6. To assist its consideration of
paragraph 22(1)(b), the Panel proposed that the Case
Manager undertake a confidential check to establish the current level of Union
membership within the bargaining unit. In letters dated 20 February 2004,
following agreement with the Case Manager and both parties, the Case Manager
requested that the Employer provide a list of the names of the workers in the
bargaining unit and that the Union provide a list of its membership within the
bargaining unit together with evidence that individuals were current members
within the Union’s rules. The Case Manager’s letter confirmed the agreement
that neither list would be copied to the other party or to the Panel. On
7. The confidential check undertaken of
the respective lists established that there were 108 members of the
8. The
9. The Company requested an extension of
time in order to advise workers within the bargaining unit about the qualifying
conditions in paragraph 22(4) and to provide time for workers who were opposed
to recognition to inform the CAC of their views. The Panel refused the Company’s request as it
would unnecessarily prolong the procedure; the request was made late in the day
without an explanation as to why the matter could not have been dealt with
earlier; and, there was no evidence to suggest that there were Union members
would wish to write to the CAC to oppose recognition if further time were to be
made available. The Company did not submit any further submissions to those set
out in paragraph 5 above.
Considerations
10. The
Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that the majority of
the workers in the bargaining unit are Union members. If the Panel is satisfied that the majority
of the bargaining unit are union members, it must then decide if any of the
three conditions in paragraph 22(4) are fulfilled. If the Panel considers any of the conditions
are fulfilled it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for
the holding of a secret ballot.
11. In
this case the checks undertaken by the Case Manager indicated that the level of
Union membership constitutes 52.9% of the bargaining unit. Therefore the Panel
is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are Union
members.
12. The
Panel has given thorough consideration to each of the qualifying conditions in
paragraph 22(4). In its letters of 18 February 2004 the Company states that it
would be in the interests of good industrial relations for a secret ballot to
be conducted (a reference to paragraph 22(4)(a)) but does not set out any reasons
or evidence to support this view. The
Panel is not aware of factors or particular considerations to suggest that a
ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations and is satisfied
that this condition does not apply.
13. Turning
to the condition set out in paragraph 22(4)(b) the
Panel noted that no Union members within the bargaining unit had informed the
CAC that they did not want the
14. In
relation to the third condition in paragraph 22(4)(c) no membership evidence
has been produced to show that there are doubts as to whether any of the Union
members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective
bargaining on their behalf. The Panel is
satisfied that this condition does not apply.
Declaration
15. Following
careful consideration of all aspects of the case and all relevant evidence
before it, the Panel declares that the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association is
recognised by First North Western as entitled to conduct collective bargaining
on behalf of all FNW Managers (excluding executives) regardless of location.
Ms Mary Stacey
Mrs Jean Johnson
Mr Roger Lyons