Case Number: TUR1/363 (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
AGREEMENT OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
The Parties:
GPMU
and
The J & D Organisation
Introduction
1. GPMU (the Union)
submitted an application to the CAC dated 8 April 2004 that it should be recognised
for collective bargaining by The J & D Organisation (the
Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all permanent employees
working as Press Hall Cleaners; Press Cleaners and Security excluding Supervisors
and Managers” based at West Ferry Printers 235 Westferry Road, London, E14 8NX.
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 deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Roy Lewis,
Chairman, and, as Members, Mr Simon Faiers and Ms Lesley Mercer. The Case Manager appointed to support the
Panel was Nigel Cookson and for the purposes of this decision Miss Sharmin
Khan.
3. To assist in determining
whether or not the application should be accepted by the CAC a report on the
results of a membership and support check was produced on
4. The Employer in its
submission supplied a breakdown of the number of workers in each section of the
Westferry Site, stating that there were 33 employees in the Press Hall and 12
employees in Security. The Employer argued
that a single bargaining unit comprising both sections would not be appropriate. It stated that the application should have
been made for two separate bargaining units, one for the Press Hall Cleaners
and one for Security. In its
submissions, the Union stated that it was prepared to modify the proposed
bargaining unit to include Press Hall Cleaners only. The Parties agreed that the bargaining unit
should consist of Press Hall Cleaners.
This agreement was confirmed by both sides in letters to the CAC dated
Issues
5. As
the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union in its
application, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of the Schedule to determine
whether the Union’s application is still valid within the terms of paragraphs
43 to 50.
6. To
assist in the determination of whether the changed bargaining unit met the validity
criteria in paragraphs 43 to 50, the Parties were asked to submit comments and/or
evidence regarding the application of the validity tests. Responses from both Parties were received by
the CAC on
7. In its response the
Employer stated that, since an appropriate bargaining unit had been agreed, it
had no other comment to make at this stage other than that it was of the
opinion that it would be “impossible” to decide whether a majority of workers
in the new bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition without a ballot
of those workers.
8. The Union, in its
response, stated that it had evidence to show that there was more than 10%
union membership within the agreed bargaining unit and a petition was also
available if the CAC required it. The
Union asserted that this evidence would confirm that a majority of workers
would be in favour of recognition of the GPMU.
Considerations
9. The Panel has to be
satisfied that the application is valid in terms of the tests laid down in
paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In
reaching its decision the Panel has taken into account all evidence submitted
by the Parties to date. On the evidence
available, the Panel is satisfied 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 agreed bargaining unit. The remaining questions before the Panel are
whether in accordance with paragraphs 45(a) and (b) of the Schedule, 10% of the
workers constituting the agreed 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.
10. The proposed bargaining
unit in the Union’s application was Press Hall Cleaners; Press Cleaners and Security excluding
Supervisors and Managers. The results of the membership and support check, dated
11. The Panel is satisfied
that the bargaining unit has reduced from 45 to 33 workers. It follows that the number of union members
in the agreed bargaining unit would be reduced by a maximum of 12, assuming
that each worker in the Security section was a union member. On that assumption, there would still be 8
union members in the agreed bargaining unit of 33. 8 as a proportion of 33 is 24.24% of the
workers in the agreed bargaining unit.
The Panel is therefore satisfied that the 10% test under paragraph 45(a)
is met.
12. If it is assumed that all
12 workers in the Security section signed the petition in favour of union
recognition, that would still leave 18 petition signatories among the workers
in the agreed bargaining unit. If one
takes 18 as a proportion of 33, 54.55% of the agreed bargaining unit petitioned
in favour of union recognition. The
Panel is therefore satisfied that in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, the majority likely to favour test under paragraph 45(b) is met.
The Panel’s Decision
13. The application is valid
for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC will therefore
proceed with the application.
Panel
Professor Roy Lewis
Mr Simon Faiers
Ms Lesley Mercer