Case Number: TUR1/342(2004)

30 April 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

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

Amicus

and

Gledhill Water Storage Ltd.

Introduction

1. Amicus (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 10 February 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Gledhill Water Storage Ltd (the Company) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all employees working for the Appliance Unit excluding all managers and administration staff” based at the Company’s premises on the Sycamore Estate, Squires Gate, Blackpool.

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 Frank Burchill, Chairman, and, as Members, Sir Bill Connor and Mr John Rugman. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

3. By a decision dated 9 March 2004, the Panel accepted the Union’s application and, as no agreement was reached on the bargaining unit, subsequently invited both parties to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. A hearing was held on 14 April 2004. The Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was ‘all employees based at the factory buildings at Sycamore Estate and Cornford Road, Blackpool, excluding all managers and administration staff’.

4. As the determined 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.

5. To assist the determination of two of the validity criteria, whether 10% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit were members of the union and whether a majority of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition of the Union, the Panel proposed a check to be undertaken by the Case Manager of the level of union membership within the determined bargaining unit. Both parties agreed that the Company would supply, to the Case Manager, a list of the names of workers within the determined bargaining unit and that the Union would supply, to the Case Manager, a list of union members within that unit to enable a comparison to be undertaken. The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 16 April 2004 and from the Company on 19 April 2004. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter from the Case Manager to both parties dated 15 April 2004. A report of the result of the check of the membership level was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 20 April 2004.

6. The list supplied by the Company indicated that there were 135 workers in the bargaining unit. The list supplied by the Union contained 73 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the bargaining unit was 69. Based on a total figure of 135 workers in the bargaining unit, this constituted a membership level of 51.11%. Both parties were then invited to supply the Panel with written submissions relating to the validity tests.

Union’s submissions

7. The Union, in a faxed letter dated 20 April 2004, stated that the amended bargaining unit was not covered by any existing agreement; there was no competing application and no previous application had been made in relation to the amended bargaining unit. Even with the amendments to the bargaining unit the Union stated that it still had 51.11% in membership. The Union also took the opportunity to respond to the Company’s letter dated 19 April 2004, by stating that it was not aware of any coercion being used to pressurise staff to join the Union, suggesting that ‘the membership campaign had considerable interest despite the attitude of the Company’.

Company’s submissions

8. The Company, in an e-mail dated 23 April 2003, suggested that the Union had pressurised staff to join and that it had supporting evidence which showed this. It also added that a number of Union members were opposed to recognition and were currently in the process of cancelling their membership with the Union. The Company asked the CAC how Union Members could express their views on Union recognition in a manner in which confidentiality would be assured. Due to these factors the Company disputed that the Union had a majority membership within the determined bargaining unit.

Considerations

9. 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.

10. The difference between the proposed and determined bargaining unit is the inclusion of the 21 workers based at the Cornford Road site. The number of workers in the original bargaining was 113 and this amounted to a level of membership in the original bargaining unit of 52.21%. In the amended bargaining unit the number of workers rose to 135 which resulted in a membership level of 51.11%. The Panel is satisfied that the 10% test under paragraph 45(a) is satisfied. Taking account of these figures the Panel is also satisfied that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of workers within the determined bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union, and therefore the validity test at paragraph 45(b) is met. The Panel, having considered all the other tests, is satisfied that these are also met.

The Panel’s Decision

11. 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.

Panel

Professor Frank Burchill

Sir Bill Connor

Mr John Rugman

30 April 2004