Case Number: TUR1/349/2004

26 April 2004

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

NUJ

and

North Notts Newspapers Limited

Introduction

1. The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 6 March 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by North Notts Newpapers Limited (the Employer). In its application the Union stated that their description of the proposed bargaining unit is ‘Reporters, sub editors, photographers, and feature writers employed by the Reporter group, it was agreed that the editor would be excluded’. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 March 2004. After an extension, of the 1 April 2004 for further time to submit an Employer’s response, the Employer submitted its response to the CAC on 1 April 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 consider the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Frank Burchill (Deputy Chairman) and as Members, Mr Eamonn Barry and Mr Robert Purkiss. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

3. The Panel is required by the Act to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore should be accepted.

4. In its response to the Union’s application the Employer objected to the Union’s proposed bargaining unit stating that the Editor, Deputy Editor, News Editor and Sports Editor are all involved in selection of staff, appraisals, promotions, salary reviews, and disciplinary issues. They argued that this group of workers would all be involved in formulating the management’s response for any claims relating to pay, hours and holidays made by the Union. The Employer feels that it would be totally incompatible with effective management if they were to be included in the bargaining unit. The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Parties were notified of an extension of the acceptance period until 16 April 2004, in a letter dated 6 April 2004.

Membership check

5. To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule’ namely whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed that two checks be undertaken by the Case Manager. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply the Case Manager with a list of the names of workers within the proposed bargaining unit and that the Union would supply the Case Manager with a list of Union members within the proposed bargaining unit. It was explicitly agreed with the parties that the information provided as a result of the Case Manager’s request would not be copied to the other party or the Panel. This confidentiality was confirmed in letters from the Case Manager to the Parties, dated 06 April 2004. The information was received from both Parties on 14 April 2004. The written report of the result of the checks was circulated to the Panel and the Parties on 16 April 2004.

6. The membership check established that, of 18 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit as indicated by the list provided by the Employer, 10 are members of the union; a membership level of 55.5%. No additional checks were carried out by the Case Manager to verify the information supplied by the parties.

7. No comments were received from the Employer or the Union on the membership check.

Considerations

8. In reaching its decision on acceptance the Panel carefully considered the written evidence from the Parties and the results of the confidential checks conducted by the Case Manager which it considers to have been properly and fairly conducted.

9. The Panel considers that on the evidence made available to it by both parties, the Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9.

10. The Panel has also to decide whether the Union’s application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule. The evidence submitted by the parties together with the results of the Case Manager’s checks, which indicated a membership level of 55.5%, the Panel decided that the Union’s application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42.

Decision

11. For the reasons stated above, the Panel's decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Professor Frank Burchill

Mr Eamonn Barry

Mr Robert Purkiss

26 April 2004