TUR1/339/(2003)

14th June 2004

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

 

THE DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

 

 

The Parties:

 

 

ISTC

 

and

 

PREMIER TRADE WINDOWS (WALES & WEST) LTD trading as

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 charge-hands, deputy charge-hands, 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 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. Following Mr O’Hara’s resignation from the CAC Dr Elizabeth Allen was appointed as a member of the Panel.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Mr Scott Spencer.  Following Mr Spencer’s departure from the CAC Mr Roshan Kamall was appointed as case manager.

 

3.                   By a decision dated 2nd March 2004, the Panel decided that the Union’s application was both valid and admissible and therefore should be accepted by the CAC.  The Parties were unable to reach an agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. The Panel invited both Parties to attend a hearing and to provide the Panel with, and exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. A hearing was held on 30th April 2004 in London.

 

4.                   By a decision dated 10 May 2004 the Panel determined that the appropriate bargaining unit is all weekly paid manual shopfloor employees including lorry drivers and cleaners, charge-hands and deputy charge-hands located at Western Industrial Estate, Caerphilly and excluding clerical, administration, sales and managerial staff and depot assistants based at satellite outlets.

 

5.                   As the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of the Schedule to determine whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50.  To this end both Parties were invited to supply the Panel with written submissions relating to the validity tests.

 

Issues

 

6.                   The Panel has to be satisfied that the application is valid in terms of the tests laid down in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 49 of the Schedule, namely that there is no existing recognition agreement in force, that there is no competing application and that there has been no previous CAC application in respect of the new bargaining unit.  In addition, the Panel has to be satisfied, in accordance with paragraphs 45(a) and (b) of the Schedule, that 10% of the workers constituting the new bargaining unit are members of the union and that a majority of those workers would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

 

Case Managers membership and support check

 

7.                   To assist the determination of the two admissibility tests under paragraph 45(a) and 45(b) of Schedule A1, namely whether 10% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit are members of the Union and whether a majority of the workers in the determined bargaining unit are likely to support recognition of the Union, the Panel instructed that the Case Manager carry out further checks on the level of union membership within the bargaining unit and the number of workers who had indicated support for recognition of the Union for the purpose of collective bargaining.  The Parties agreed that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names of workers in the bargaining unit determined by the Panel and that the Union would provide a list of the names of its members within the unit to enable a comparison to be undertaken.

 

8.                   Additionally, the Parties agreed that 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 so that a check could be undertaken of the number of workers within the bargaining unit determined by the Panel who had signed the petition or pledge cards.  It was explicitly agreed with the Parties that, in order 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 11th May from the Case Manager to both Parties.  The information from the Employer was received on 20th May 2004 and from the Union on 24th May 2004.

 

9.                   The result of the membership check showed that there were 157 workers in the bargaining unit of whom 61 were members of the Union, giving a membership level of 38.85%.  The check of the petition and pledge cards showed that these had been signed by 59 of the workers in the bargaining unit (37.85%). Of these 39 were members of the Union and 20 were non members.

 

Considerations

 

10.               The Case Manager’s check established that 38.85% of the workers in the 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 45(a) of Schedule A1. 

 

11.               The second issue for the Panel to consider is whether, under paragraph 45(b), a majority of workers constituting the 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 Union’s petition and pledge cards were signed by 37.85% of the workers in the 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 and pledge cards (which included 20 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.  

 

Decision

 

13.               The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC will therefore proceed with the application. 
 

 

 

 

 

The Panel

 

Panel Chair                 Mary Stacey

Members                    Simon Faiers

Elizabeth Allen

 

 14th June 2004