Case Number: TUR1/340/ (2003)

26th July 2004

 

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

 

GMB

 

and

 

ASDA

 

Introduction

 

  1. The GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 28th January 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by ASDA (the Employer) for all permanently employed hourly paid employees at the Regional Distribution Centre (8) at Straithes Road, Washington, excluding all salaried employees, temporary employees, agency workers or sub contractors. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 30 January 2004. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 9 February 2004 which was copied to the Union. 

 

  1. 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 Christopher Chapman, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Sandy Boyle and David Crowe.  The Case Manager appointed was Roshan Kamall.

 

 

  1. By a decision dated 30 April 2004, the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The Parties agreed the bargaining unit as “all permanently employed hourly paid employees at the Regional Distribution Centre (8) at Straithes Road, Washington, excluding all salaried employees, temporary employees, agency workers or sub contractors”.

 

  1. As the Union did not claim that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the union, the Panel gave notice, under paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule to the Act, that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Parties were advised, in a letter from the Case Manager dated 15 May 2004, that the Panel would wait until the end of the notification period, as specified in paragraphs 24(2) to (5) of the Schedule, before proceeding with the arrangements. The Parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

 

  1. The notification period described in the preceding paragraph elapsed without the Union, or the Union and the Employer jointly, informing the CAC that a ballot was not required.

 

Issues to be determined

 

  1. The issue to be determined by the Panel is what form the ballot should take. In deciding the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods) the CAC must, under paragraph 25(5) of the Schedule, take into account the following matters:

 

(a)   the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace or workplaces;

 

(b)   costs and practicality;

 

(c)    such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

 

 

  1. Furthermore, paragraph 25(6) states that the CAC may not decide that the ballot should be a combination of workplace and postal methods unless there are special factors making such a decision appropriate. Special factors include:

 

(a)   factors arising from the location of workers or the nature of their employment;

 

(b)   factors put to the CAC by the employer or the union.

 

  1. In telephone call to the CAC on 28 June 2004 the Union expressed a preference for a workplace ballot, with a postal vote for any employees who for whatever reason were unavailable to vote at the workplace on the day of the ballot.  The Union argued that in its experience workplace ballots lead to great participation by employees and that the presence of a qualified independent person at the workplace would prevent either party from tying to unduly influence the way in which employees voted

 

  1. The Employer, in a letter dated 23 June 2004, expressed a preference for a postal ballot. 

 

  1. The Case Manager wrote to the Employer on 30 June 2004 requesting details of the shift patterns for those employees employed in the agreed bargaining unit. In a letter dated 1 July 2004 the Employer set out the shift patterns for those employees employed within the bargaining unit and listed its concerns in respect of a work place or combination ballot, namely;

 

·        the risk of disruption to operations at RDC8’,

 

·        the cost of supervising the ballot process 24 hours a day,

 

·        the cost of colleagues time taken away from their duties,

 

·        the difficulty in controlling over 500 employees moving to and from the their place of work and the ballot boxes,

 

·        the difficulties the Union would face in supervising the ballot,

 

·        the integrity of the vote with regard to identifying each employee taking part in the ballot,

 

·        the risk of undue pressure from colleagues within RDC8,

 

 

  1. The Employer’s letter of 1 July 2004 was copied to the Union on 6 July 2004 inviting them to comment on its contents.  In an email dated 12 July 2004 the Union sated that they did not believe that the areas of concern listed in the Employer’s letter of 1 July 2004 were as great as they had been presented and that they still believed that a combination ballot was the most appropriate for this case.  In the email the Union conceded that because of their working practices all drivers employed in the agreed bargaining unit should receive a postal ballot.

 

Considerations

 

  1. The Panel has carefully considered the parties’ views and the matters specified in paragraph 25(5) and have concluded that the ballot should essentially be a workplace ballot with a postal vote for drivers employed within the bargaining unit. The Panel has also noted that the Union expressed the view that postal votes should be made available to those workers whom it is known will be absent from the Employer’s premises on the day of the ballot. The Panel supports that proposal as it considers that this method is likely to increase the participation rate in this case.

 

Decision

 

  1. The Panel’s decision is that there should be a workplace ballot with the provision of a postal vote for drivers employed within the agreed bargaining unit and for any worker within the bargaining unit where either party informs the Qualified Independent Person no less than one week before the date of the ballot that the worker in question will be absent on the day of the ballot. The Parties will be notified shortly of the name of the Qualified Independent Person and the period within which the ballot is to be held.

 

 

 

 

Panel Chairman: Christopher Chapman

 

Members:            David Crowe

 

                            Sandy Boyle

 

 

26th July 2004.