Ref:
Tur1/347/2004
24
May 2004
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE
SCHEDULE A1 – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE
APPLICATION
The Parties:
AMICUS
And
GE Thermometrics (
1.
Amicus (the
2.
In accordance
with section 236 of the 1992 Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal
with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor John Purcell, Chairman, and as
members Mrs. Diana Palmer and Lord David Lea OBE. The Case Manager appointed to
support the Panel was Mr. Humphrey Uddoh.
3.
The Panel is
required by the Act to decide whether the
4.
In its
application, the
5.
To assist the
determination of the admissibility criteria 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 union, the Panel proposed a check to be undertaken by the
Case Manager of the level of Union membership and support within the bargaining
unit. It was explicitly agreed between the parties that, to preserve
confidentiality, neither list would be copied to the other party. These
arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated
6.
The results of
the check was that there were 104 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining
unit of whom 49 were members of the Union; a membership level of 47.1%. None of
those who were known to have resigned from the union were included in the
union’s list of members. The petition check showed that of the 104 workers in
the proposed bargaining unit 58 had signed the petition showing a support level
for recognition of 55%.
7.
The parties were
notified that the Panel intended to arrange a hearing on acceptance and
requested to provide submissions for this purpose. A hearing was held on
8.
At the hearing
the
9.
With regard to
the ballot conducted by the Company, the
10.
The Union
further argued that this ballot was not specific to its proposed bargaining
unit but to the whole workforce and stated that even with the one-sided
campaign and misinformation there was still at least 46% of the workforce in
favour of recognition even though it had asked its members not to take part in
the ballot. The petition they argued had been conducted only shortly before the
secret ballot and even with the hostile climate had still recorded a majority
support including from non-members for recognition.
11.
They stressed
that the company JCC was not fully constituted and as such could not be said to
be representative of the workers. A CAC organised ballot will be seen as
independent by the workers and will allow the
12.
The Company
argued that the
13.
Arguing why the
ballot results could not be ignored, the company pointed at the very high
turnout for the ballot even though the union had asked its members not to take
part as a sign that support for the union was not that high. They also argued
that this high turnout demonstrated the high degree of confidence placed in the
ballot by the workers contrary to the Union’s argument and stressed that the
statements made by the MD to the workforce about closure were his personal
views which the Company had sought to distance itself from reassuring the
workforce that the plant will be judged on its performance and recognition
would only matter if it adversely affected performance.
14.
The Company and
dismissed allegations of intimidation as, a misrepresentation or
misunderstanding of the company’s attempt to make its views about recognition
know by the workers. The Company made counter accusations that some union
activists had put pressure on fellow workers to sign the
15.
They argued that
the results from the Company run ballot, which showed that a majority of
workers in the company and indeed in the proposed bargaining had not voted in
favour of the union, was unchallengeable evidence that a majority of the
workers were unlikely to favour recognition of the union for collective
bargaining. They further argued that employees continue to support the Company’s
internal processes in relation to matters, which might otherwise fall to be
negotiated by the
16.
The Panel has to
decide, firstly, 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, secondly, whether, under paragraph 36(1)(b),
a majority of the 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.
17.
The Panel is
satisfied that the Case Managers check, which showed that 47.1% of workers in
the proposed bargaining unit were members of the
18.
As is often the
case in disputed union recognition cases, allegations of intimidation were made
by both parties of the other’s conduct. There may have been pressure on a few
individuals to resign their union membership, and to take part in the ballot
(which was a properly conducted secret ballot), and some individuals may have
been pressurised into signing the petition. However, the Panel did not consider
there was sufficient grounds to discount or overlook
the results of either the ballot or the petition. Potentially more serious
allegations were made by the union to the effect that the Managing Director of
the Taunton establishment had implied that the plant would be shut down of
seriously disadvantaged in the eyes of its corporate owners if the union was
recognized. The Panel noted the clear efforts of corporate management to
distance themselves from these remarks and to reassure the workforce of the
corporation’s commitment to the plant. It is, of course, impossible for the
Panel to judge the effect of these statements one way or the other. The Panel
must rely on the evidence before it.
19.
The
contradictory results of the ballot and the petition have been carefully
considered by the Panel who were aided by submissions at the hearing from both
parties. The Panel notes that union membership is very near the majority
threshold despite some members having resigned. The Panel were
informed that one person had subsequently re-joined the union. Taken with the
petition, which was conducted only a short period before the secret ballot was
held and had to be done covertly in the workplace, the Panel believe the
combined result of membership levels and extra support by some non-members
provides a figure of 55% of the workers in the bargaining unit likely to
support union recognition. It is not possible to know the precise level of
voting in the secret ballot of those workers in the bargaining unit who were
opposed to union recognition but the best estimate appears to be in the region
of 52%. This cannot be seen as an overwhelming vote against the union’s claim
for recognition and is not enough to set aside the result of the petition and
solid union membership.
20.
In the light of
all the evidence given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is
accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Professor
John Purcell
Mrs. Diana
Palmer
Lord David
Lea
24 May
2004