TUR1/359/(2004)

23 July 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

 

THE AGREEMENT OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

 

 

The Parties:

 

 

GMB

 

and

 

Whitby Seafoods Limited

 

 

Introduction

1.        GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 29 March 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Whitby Seafoods Limited  (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising 'All employees who are employed as process workers/skilled/semi skilled and labourers. This claim does not include managerial, supervisory or office based staff'. The current location of the bargaining unit was described as the factory at Fairfield Way Business Park, Whitby, YO22 4PU. The Union stated there were 124 workers employed in the proposed bargaining unit, 28 of whom were members of the Union. The Union also stated that it had a petition signed by 86 employees requesting that the GMB be recognized by the Employer. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 29 March 2004.  On 02 April 2004 the employer submitted a response to the CAC, 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 Mr Chris Chapman (Panel Chairman) and Mr David Crowe and Mr Michael Leahy (Members).  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Matt Penfold.

 

3.         By a decision dated 18 May 2004, the Panel decided that the Union’s application was both valid and admissible and therefore should be accepted by the CAC. 

 

4.         The Parties were able to reach an agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit on 11 June 2004. The agreed bargaining unit is all employees working for the company with the exclusion of the Directors of the business.

 

Issues

 

5.         As the agreed 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. 

 

Case Manager’s membership and support check

 

6.         To assist the determination of the two admissibility tests under paragraph 45(a) and 45(b) of Schedule A1, namely whether 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the Union and whether a majority of the workers in this bargaining unit are likely to favour recognition of the Union, the Panel instructed that the Case Manager carry out checks on the level of union membership within the bargaining unit and the number of workers who had indicated support for recognition of the Union for the purpose of collective bargaining. 

 

7.         The Parties agreed that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names of workers in the agreed bargaining unit and that the Union would provide a list of the names of its members and a copy of the petition within the unit to enable a comparison to be undertaken.  It was explicitly agreed with the Parties that, in order to preserve confidentiality, the information provided by one party would not be copied to the other.  The agreed arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 6 July from the Case Manager to both Parties.  The information from the Employer was received on 12 July 2004. The Union provided a list of Union members on 6 July 2004 and the petition on 7 July 2004.

 

8.         The result of the membership check showed that there were 132 workers in the bargaining unit of whom 19 were members of the Union, giving a membership level of 14.39%.  The petition consisted of 83 signatures and the check showed that it had been signed by 68 workers in the bargaining unit (51.52%).

 

Views of the Employer

 

9.         The Employer accepted the membership percentage. The Employer stated that the Union's petition should not be accepted and relied on the arguments put forward at the acceptance stage of this application. No new evidence was submitted.

 

Views of the Union

 

10.        The Union reiterated that it had achieved the membership level and the “majority likely to favour” in the agreed bargaining unit. The Union stated that the process of a ballot should be commenced as soon as possible.

 

Considerations

 

11.        The Panel is satisfied on the evidence available 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.  The remaining tests before the Panel are whether, 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.

 

 

12.        The Case Manager’s check established that 14.39% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. The evidence available before the Panel, therefore, establishes that at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union, and that the Union has met the admissibility test stipulated in paragraph 45(a) of Schedule A1. 

 

13.        The second issue for the Panel to consider is whether, under paragraph 45(b), a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Employer has again disputed the authenticity of the Union's petition but, has not provided any evidence to support this. The Union’s petition was signed by 51.52% of the workers in the bargaining unit. Without any evidence to dispute the authenticity of the petition, the Panel is satisfied that the level of support indicated by the Union’s petition provides sufficient evidence that the majority of workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

 

Decision

 

14.        The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule. The CAC will therefore proceed with the application. 
 

 

 

 

 

The Panel

 

Chris Chapman, Chairman

David Crowe

Michael Leahy

 

 

23 July 2004