TUR1/360/2004

12 MAY 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:

T&GWU

 And

Jones Lang Lasalle

Background

1. The TGWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 29 March 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Jones Lang Lasalle (the Company) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising of ‘All hourly paid employees in the following categories: Security Staff,  Housekeepers, Maintenance (MDC) including the shift leaders for these groups.’  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 30 March 2004 and invited responses from the employer with regard to the application.

2. In accordance with section 263 of the 1992 Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Lynette Harris, Chairman, and as Members, Mr. Keith Sonnet and Mr Bryan Taker. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Mr Humphrey Uddoh.

Considerations

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 8; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore should be accepted.

4. In its application, the Union submitted there were 68 workers in the bargaining unit it proposed, of whom 47 were union members. In its reply to the Union's application, the Company stated that it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, as stated by the Union in its application. The Company also stated that it did not agree with the proposed bargaining unit. The Company defined its preferred bargaining unit as all employees at the Queensgate shopping centre. The Company also responded that it did not have any knowledge of the membership levels within the union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Company did not contest any other elements in the Union's application relating to the admissibility tests.

5 To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria, 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 proposed bargaining unit. Both parties agreed to supply, to the Case Manager, in the case of the Company a list of the names of workers within the proposed bargaining unit and in the case of the Union a list of members together with a petition showing support for recognition. It was explicitly agreed with the parties that, to preserve confidentiality, neither list would be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 7 April 2004 from the Case Manager to both parties. The Company provided a list of 67 workers to the Case manager on 14 April 2004. The Union provided a list of its membership dated 8 April 2004, containing the details of 53 individuals. A report of the result of the checks of the membership level and support was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 20 April 2004.

6. The result of the membership check was that there were 67 workers in the Union's proposed bargaining unit of whom 42 were members of the Union; a membership level of 62.7%. The petition check established that 51 workers amounting to 76.12% of the proposed bargaining unit had signed the Union’s petition; of this figure 35 (52.2%) were Union members and 16 (23.8%) were non-members.

7. The parties were invited to submit their views on the results of the membership check report. Neither party chose to comment.

8. The Panel has to decide, firstly, whether, under paragraph 36(1) (a) of the 8 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 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.

9. The Panel is satisfied that the Case Manager's check, which showed that 62.7% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, was properly conducted.  The Panel is satisfied that the level of union membership in the bargaining unit does constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1) (a) of the Schedule.

10. The second issue for the Panel to consider is whether, 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 bargaining unit. The Panel is satisfied that the Case Manager’s check, which showed that 76.12% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit had signed the petition in favour of recognition is sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements, 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.

11. In addition, the Panel is satisfied, after considering all the documentation submitted by the parties, that the Union's application meets the remaining statutory tests.

Decision

12. In the light of all the evidence given above, the Panel's decision is that the

application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel Chair Professor Lynette Harris

Members Mr Keith Sonnet

Mr Brian Taker

12 MAY 2004