Case Number: TUR1/350/2004

7 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:

 

Iron and Steel Trades Congress

 

and

 

Thyssen Krupp Service Centre UK Limited

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         The Iron and Steel Trades Congress (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) dated 9 March 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Thyssen Krupp Service Centre UK Limited (the Employer) in respect of the bargaining unit described as “weekly paid shop floor manual grade employees and lorry drivers excluding supervisory staff and above and clerical staff based at the Thyssen Krupp Service Centre UK Limited, Lake Road, Leeway Industrial Estate, Newport”  The Union estimated that its proposed bargaining unit comprised approximately 40 workers of whom 16 were its members.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 March 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 consider the case.  The Panel consisted of Professor John Goodman (Panel Chairman) and Dr Susan Corby and Mr George Getlevog (Members).  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah Kendall.

 

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

 

 

4.         The Employer’s response dated 18 March 2004 made the following points: the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was 44; although the Employer was unable to agree or disagree with the Union’s estimated membership it stated that it agreed with the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union; the Employer did not believe that there was a majority in support of the Union.  In April 2002 the ISTC stated that it had over 50% membership and an independent check was conducted the result being that the Union membership was 40%.

 

5.         By its letter dated 23 March 2004 the Union stated that it had a substantial membership at Thyssen Krupp Service Centre UK Limited and could provide evidence that a majority of the workers were likely to favour recognition of the ISTC for collective bargaining purposes.

 

 

Membership and support check

 

6.         To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, 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 a confidential check  be undertaken by the Case Manager.  In letters to both parties dated 24 March 2004 the Case Manager requested that the Employer provided a list of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit and that the Union provide a list of its membership within the proposed bargaining unit and pledge cards which had been signed by workers within the proposed bargaining unit.  The Case Manager’s letter confirmed that neither the lists nor the pledge cards would be copied to the other party or the Panel.  The Employer provided a list containing the names and job titles of 50 individuals:  the names of 6 of these individuals being annotated as not being in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The Union provided a copy of its branch index report containing the names and addresses of 16 members.  It also supplied the CAC with a copy of 19 pledge cards stated to be in support of its recognition by the Employer.  Nine pledge cards carried the statement “as an employee at Gwent Steels Ltd I would like the ISTC trade union to be recognised for collective bargaining”, underneath which was space for the individual to print, sign their name and give their department.  The other 10 cards were identical other than “Gwent Steels Ltd” being replaced by “Thyssen Krupp Service Centre”.  At the foot of the cards the Union informed the individual that the slip would not be passed to management.  None of the signatures on the pledge cards were dated.

 

7.         The membership check showed that there were 11 members of the Union within the proposed bargaining unit; a membership level of 25%.  The check of the Union’s pledge evidence established that 18 of the 44 workers listed by the Employer as being in the proposed bargaining unit had signed the Union’s pledge card. Five of these were Union members, and 13 were non-members.  The non-Union member signatories represented 29.6% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  A report of the result of the check of the membership level and the check of the petition was circulated to both parties on 25 March 2004.

 

 

Views of the Union

 

8.         In its letter dated 29 March 2004 the Union stated that the application met the statutory tests in relation to admissibility.  The Union contended that the membership and support check conducted by the Case Manager clearly demonstrated that the ISTC membership level was in excess of 10%.  In fact, the report established that 25% of the proposed bargaining unit were members of the ISTC.  It stated that members joined the Union for collective bargaining purposes as a direct result of an organising campaign, clearly demonstrating that the Union satisfies the criteria of paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.  The Union submitted that the membership and support check report also verified that a further 13 workers who were non-members and constituting 29.55% of workers within the proposed bargaining unit had signed pledge cards demonstrating that they wished the ISTC to be recognised for collective bargaining.  The Union asserted that these figures considered together showed the Union’s overall support stood at 54.55%.  It therefore believes that this demonstrated a clear majority of workers at Thyssen Krupp are likely to support union recognition.

 

 

Views of the Employer

 

9.         Following receipt of the membership and petition check the Employer, by its letter dated 30 March 2004 stated that it did not have its own data and therefore was unable to comment on Union membership or support of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer also stated that it was unable to comment on the validity of the undated pledge cards.

 

 

Considerations

 

10.       In deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied.  The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the Employer and the Union in reaching its decision.

 

 

11.       The Panel is satisfied on this evidence that the Union had made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraph 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11.  Furthermore, on the evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied that this application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule.  The remaining questions before the Panel are whether 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union, and whether the majority of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining.

 

 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

 

12.       The Employer has not disputed that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the proposed bargaining unit.  The membership and support report dated 25 March 2004 indicated that Union members constitute 25% of the proposed bargaining unit.  The Union in its letter dated 29 March 2004 stated that the membership and support check determined that 25% of the proposed bargaining unit were Union members clearly demonstrating that the Union had satisfied paragraph 36(1)(a).  The Employer stated, in its letter dated 30 March 2004, that it was unable to validate the Union’s level of membership within the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union.  The Panel is satisfied that the information provided by the Employer and the Union for the membership check is current.  The Employer has not disputed this figure and the Panel has not been made aware of any evidence that would suggest other than that the figure is accurate.  The Panel is therefore satisfied on the evidence available to it, that at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union and that the Union’s application is therefore admissible within the terms of paragraph 36(1)(a).

 

 

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

 

13.       The Panel must also be satisfied on the balance of probabilities under paragraph 36(1)(b), that a majority of 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.  The Union relied on both its membership figures and pledge cards it had collected which were signed by a significant number of workers who were non Union members in the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer in its response states that it did not have the opportunity to conduct its own check to test the views of its workers.  The Employer did not comment on the pledge cards insofar as they were undated and nine pledge cards referred to workers in Gwent Steels Ltd and ten referred to Thyssen Krupp Service Centre.  No other evidence was brought before the Panel.  The absence of dates on the signed pledge cards is potentially problematic, but this has not led the Panel to consider that they should be disregarded.  The Employer did not challenge them on this point, and the membership and support report check showed that they related to current workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  There was no evidence that the cards no longer represented the views of the signatories.  Similarly the Employer has not challenged the fact that almost half the cards refer to the Employer as Gwent Steels Limited.  It is understood by the Panel that this refers to the former Employer on the site.  In the light of the levels if Union membership together with the support for recognition amongst a significant proportion of non-Union members, the Panel is satisfied that, under paragraph 36(1)(b), a majority of 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 proposed bargaining unit.

 

 

Decision

 

14.       The application is valid within the terms of paragraph 5-9, was made in accordance with paragraph 11 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1.  The application is therefore accepted by the CAC.

 

 

 

Panel

 

Professor John Goodman

 

Dr Susan Corby

 

Mr George Getlevog

 

 

 

7 April 2004