Case Number: TUR1/339/ (2004)

2nd March 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:

 

 

              Iron and Steel Trades Confederation (ISTC)

 

 

                                                                                                                        and

 

 

Premier Trade Frames

 

 

Introduction

 

1.      The ISTC (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 28th January 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Premier Trade Frames (the Company) for all weekly paid manual shopfloor employees including lorry drivers and cleaners and excluding chargehands and deputy chargehands, clerical, administration, sales and managerial staff located at Western Industrial Estate, Caerphilly.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 29th January 2004.  The Company submitted a response to the CAC on 2nd February 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, Panel Chairman, and, as Members, Mr Simon Faiers and Mr Joe O’Hara.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Mr Scott Spencer.

 

3.   The Panel agreed to extend the statutory deadline for it to decide if the Union’s application could be accepted by the CAC until 3rd March 2004 in order to allow more time to consider all the evidence and reach its decision.

 

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; and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act, and is therefore to be accepted.

 

5.        In relation to the tests in paragraph 36(1)(a) and 36(1)(b) of Schedule A1 the Company stated in its response to the CAC that many shopfloor staff had explained that they did not want to have a union recognised.  The Company did not contend that the Union’s application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or validity criteria in the Schedule.

 

6.       The Company stated in its response that it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, although made clear that they would dispute the appropriateness of the bargaining unit selected by the Union in due course.

 

Case Manager’s membership and support check

 

7.     To assist the determination of the two admissibility tests under paragraphs 36 (1) (a) and 36 (1) (b) of Schedule A1, namely whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition of the trade union, the Panel proposed that checks be undertaken by the Case Manager of both the level of Union membership within the proposed unit and the number of workers who had indicated support for recognition of the Union. The Parties agreed that the Company would supply to the Case Manager, in confidence, a list of the names of the workers in the bargaining unit proposed by the Union and that the Union would provide a list of the names of its members within the unit, in confidence, to enable a comparison to be undertaken.

 

8.       Additionally, the Parties agreed that the Union would provide to the Case Manager, on a confidential basis, a copy of the petition and pledge cards to test support for collective bargaining it had conducted in the proposed bargaining unit so that a check could be undertaken of the number of workers within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit who had signed the petition and cards. It was explicitly agreed with the Parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the information provided by one Party would not be copied to the other. The agreed arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 16th February 2004 from the Case Manager to both Parties. The Case Manager received the information from both Parties on 19th February 2004.

 

9.     The result of the membership check was that there were 135 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit of whom 66 were members of ISTC; a membership level of 49%.  The check of the petition and the pledge cards showed that they had been signed by 69 of the workers (51%) in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. Of those 69 signatories, 50 were Union members and 19 were non-members. The heading on the petition read ‘We the undersigned, being employees of Premier Trade Frames, would like to see the ISTC trade union recognised for collective bargaining purposes at Premier Trade Frames, Caerphilly’. The heading on the pledge cards read ‘As an employee at Premier Trade Frames I would like the ISTC trade union to be recognised for collective bargaining’. The Union informed the Case Manager that the signatures on the petition and pledge cards were collected in December 2003 and January 2004. 

 

10.       The Case Manager’s report of the results of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the Parties on 24th February 2004.  The Parties were invited to comment on the report. The Company in a letter dated 24th February 2004 stated that many of the staff within the proposed bargaining unit did not wish to be represented for collective bargaining by the Union and that some employees would actually leave its employment if the ISTC were to be recognised. In a letter dated 26th February 2004 the Union stated that application met the statutory tests in relation to admissibility and that the results of the membership check had demonstrated that a clear and significant majority would be likely to support union recognition.

 

Considerations

 

11.      The Panel has to decide whether, under paragraph 36 (1) (a) of the Schedule, members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit and, also, whether, 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.

 

12.      The Company offered no evidence to counter the Union’s position on the remaining tests referred to at paragraph 4 above. The Panel has considered all the documentation relating to the remaining tests and is satisfied, that the Union’s application meets all the other statutory criteria.

 

Paragraph 36 (1) (a)

 

13.    The Case Manager’s check established that 49% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The evidence available before the Panel, therefore, establishes that at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union, and that the Union has met the admissibility test stipulated in paragraph 36 (1) (a) of Schedule A1. 

 

Paragraph 36 (1) (b)

 

14.     The second issue for the Panel to consider is whether, 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.

 

15.   The Panel considers that the Union provided persuasive evidence that the majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. The Union’s petition was signed by 51% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Panel is satisfied that the level of Union membership, when considered with the level of support indicated by the Union’s petition (which included 19 non-members), provides sufficient evidence that the 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. There was no evidence that those who have joined the Union have done so for reasons which would not point to support for recognition.  We note that the Company perceives that many staff do not want the Union to be recognised, but the evidence before us from the Union membership figures and the petition and pledges of support suggest that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support Union recognition. 

 

Decision

           

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

 

 

Panel

 

Ms Mary Stacey

Mr Simon Faiers

Mr Joe O’Hara

 

2nd March 2004