Case Number: TUR1/343(2004)

18 May 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

Premdor Crosby Ltd.

Introduction

1. Amicus (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 20 February 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Premdor Crosby Ltd (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising ‘Production Supervisors employed at (the) Darton Site’. The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 20 February 2004. The Employer submitted its formal response to the CAC on 27 February 2004.

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 Paul Davies, Chairman, and, as Members, Mrs Maureen Chambers and Mr Paul Gates. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

3. By a decision dated 12 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 26 April 2004. Having carefully considered the Parties written and oral submissions the Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was ‘Production and Warehouse Supervisors based at the Darton site’.

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.

Membership Check

5. To assist the determination of two of the validity criteria, namely whether 10% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit were members of the Union and whether a majority of the workers in the determined bargaining unit were likely to support recognition of the Union, the Panel proposed that the Case Manager conducted a check of the level of Union membership within the new unit. Both Parties agreed that the Employer 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 Employer was received by the CAC on 10 May 2004 and that from the Union on 11 May 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 7 May 2004. A report of the result of the check of the membership level was circulated to the Panel and the Parties on 12 May 2004.

6. The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 15 workers in the new bargaining unit. The list supplied by the Union contained 15 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members common to both lists was 12. Based on a total figure of 15 workers in the bargaining unit, this constituted a membership level of 80%. 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 letter dated 12 May 2004, referred the Panel to its letter of 30 April 2004 (which was actually dated 5 May 2004) in which the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers in the new bargaining unit, there was no competing application and there had been no previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit. The Union submitted that the 10% test was duly satisfied and that, given the high level of Union membership in the new bargaining unit, a majority of the workers would be likely to favour recognition.

Employer’s submissions

8. The Employer, in an e-mail dated 14 May 2004, stated that it had no comment to make on the validity tests and requested that the matter of Union recognition be put to a ballot.

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 result of the Case Manager’s report was that there were 15 workers in the bargaining unit as determined by the Panel, with 12 of these workers being members of the Union; giving a membership level of 80%. Accordingly The Panel finds that the 10% test under paragraph 45(a) is satisfied. Further, the Panel believes it is reasonable, taking into account the level of Union membership within the determined bargaining unit, for it to conclude that a majority of the workers would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the validity test set out in paragraph 45(b) is also 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 Paul Davies, Chairman

Mrs Maureen Chambers

Mr Paul Gates

18 May 2004