Case Number: TUR1/335[2004]
23 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:
GPMU
and
Lonsdale Print Solutions Ltd
Introduction
1. GPMU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 13 January
2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Lonsdale Print
Solutions (the Company) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All
Permanent production employees, up to and including Supervisors, Engineering,
Warehouse and Dispatch employees”. The
CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 16 January
2004. The Company submitted a response
to the CAC on 23 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 Professor Linda Dickens MBE, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr Peter
Humphrey and Mr Bob Purkiss. The Case Manager appointed to support the
Panel was Humphrey Uddoh.
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 is therefore to be accepted.
4. In its application, the Union submitted there were 58 workers in the
bargaining unit it proposed, of whom 37 were members. In the response to the Union’s application
the Company submitted that the number of workers in the proposed bargaining
unit, as stated by the Union, was incorrect. The Company stated that it was not
in a position to comment on the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed
bargaining unit. They added that ‘a number of people had approached the
management and confirmed that they didn’t support the union’s application for
recognition. Some identified that they felt pressured into signing a petition
supporting the union’.
5. The Panel proposed that a check of the level of Union membership and
support within the proposed bargaining unit be undertaken by the Case Manager.
Both parties agreed that the Company would supply to the Case Manager a list of
the names of workers within the proposed unit and that the Union would supply
to the Case Manager a list of Union members within that unit together with a
list of those who signed a petition in favour of recognition 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 30 January 2004 from the
Case Manager to both parties. The information from the Company was received by
the Case Manager on 3 February 2004 and the information from the Union was
received on 5 February 2004. The results of the check of the membership level
were circulated to the Panel on the 10 February and the parties on 13 February
2004. The statutory time period for
determining whether the application was admissible was extended to allow time
for the membership check to be undertaken and the results considered. 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 Company, in commenting on the membership check report, stated that
it had received a petition against recognition of the Union signed by workers
in the bargaining unit. The Company noted that another petition was going round
the factory also instigated by employees who do not want recognition. The
Company stated that it would insist that an independent secret ballot to be
held. The Union made no comment on the results of the membership check.
7. The Company notified the CAC, in a letter dated 3 February 2004, that they had officially approached ACAS to
explore a voluntary way forward in the application for recognition by GPMU and
requested the CAC hold up consideration of this application until after the
preliminary discussion. The CAC has to proceed with an application unless it is
withdrawn by the Union. A letter dated 5 February 2004 from the Union stated
that, although they hoped for a positive outcome from the discussion with ACAS,
they wanted the statutory process to continue as a voluntary agreement may not
be reached.
Considerations
8. In its application, the Union estimated the number of workers in the
proposed bargaining unit as 58. The Company provided a list of 75 workers to
the case manager for the membership check. The Union provided a list of 37
members. The information was cross-checked and showed that of the 37 names of
members given by the Union, 35 were in the list provided by the Company. The
proportion of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit, as detailed in the
Company’s list, is therefore 46.6%.
9. The petition provided by the union contained the following statement:
‘We the undersigned who are employed at Lonsdales ask
the GPMU be recognised as being entitled to conduct collective bargaining on
our behalf..’. It contained 35 names which were also on the Company-provided
list of 75 workers. This meant that the proportion of workers in the proposed
bargaining unit who signed the petition was 46.6%. The petition against
recognition which was forwarded by the Company after the membership check
contained 14 signatures.
10. The Panel has considered all the evidence relating to the statutory
tests and is satisfied that the Union’s application meets all the criteria laid
down in the Schedule. The Panel examined, in particular, whether the
application fulfilled the two tests stipulated in paragraph 36 of the Schedule.
Para 36 (1)(a) requires us to be satisfied that at least 10% of those employed
in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union. We conclude that the
information summarised above is sufficient for us to be satisfied on this
point.
11. Paragraph 36 (1) (b) of the Schedule provides that for the application
to be admissible, the CAC must decide that a majority of the 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 petition in support of recognition has been signed
by 46.6% of the bargaining unit. This is a significant proportion of the
bargaining unit although not a majority.
From the evidence we have it appears likely that the Union operated on
the basis that the bargaining unit was smaller than the employer’s list
indicated (i.e. 58 rather than 75) and it is reasonable to suppose that
signatures from all those in the bargaining unit may not have been sought. The
Panel considered the fact that the employer had stated some pressure may have
been brought to bear, but we have no evidence on this point, and that a
petition against recognition containing 14 signatures had been forwarded by the
employer. Having fourteen employees
opposed to recognition in a bargaining unit of 75 is not incompatible with a
majority being in favour. The Panel
considers it important to note that at this stage in the statutory process we
are dealing with likelihood of support.
If necessary and appropriate under the legislation, actual support for
recognition can be tested at a later stage by a ballot. Taking account of the evidence, together with
the results of the Case Manager’s check described above, we are satisfied on
the balance of probabilities that a majority of the 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.
Decision
12. The application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Professor Linda Dickens MBE
Mr Peter Humphrey
Mr Bob Purkiss
23 February 2004