Case Number: TUR1/376/(2004)

27 August 2004

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

UNIFI

and

Laiki Bank

Introduction

1. UNIFI (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 5 May 2004 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by The Cyprus Popular Bank Limited, trading as Laiki Bank (the Employer) for a bargaining unit consisting of ‘All staff, on contracts based in the UK, in Bands A, B, C and D’ at six locations in London and one in Birmingham.

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 Ms Mary Stacey, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr R Hastie and Mr D Scard. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Matt Penfold.

3. By its written decision dated 7 June 2004, the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The Parties were unable to reach an agreement on the bargaining unit and the Panel convened a hearing, held on 29 July 2004. The Panel, by its written decision dated 6 August 2004, determined that the appropriate bargaining unit is as contended for by the Union, namely, all staff, on contracts based in the UK, in Bands A, B, C and D at six locations in London and one in Birmingham.

4. Following the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit the Panel instructed the Case Manager to ascertain whether the Union claimed that it had a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit as its members and, if so, to seek the Parties’ views as to whether or not a ballot should be held. The Union, in its letter dated 11 August 2004, stated that it held a majority membership within the determined bargaining unit and submitted that recognition should be awarded without a ballot. The Union also referred to the membership check conducted by the CAC at the acceptance stage in which it was established that the Union had a majority membership within the proposed bargaining unit who supported recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining. It went on to state that Panel determined that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was the appropriate unit and contended that the membership levels had not significantly changed since the membership check. The Union’s response was copied to the Employer on the 12 August 2004. The Employer was asked to provide a response on the Union’s claim for recognition without a ballot and on whether any of the statutory conditions for the holding of a ballot were met, and to do so by 18 August 2004. The Employer in its letter dated 18 August 2004 stated that it had no submissions to make in respect of the ballot.

Considerations

5. Schedule A1 to the Act provides that where the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2), unless any of three qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) applies. These qualifying conditions are as follows:

i) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;

ii) a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit inform the CAC that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;

iii) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

6. The Act therefore requires the Panel to consider first whether it is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are Union members.

7. In this case the confidential membership check undertaken at the acceptance stage on 27 May 2004 by the Case Manager indicated that the level of Union membership, when checked against the Company’s list of 153 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, constituted 56.86% of the proposed bargaining unit. In the hearing on the 29 July 2004 the Employer stated that there was a total of 160 workers in the determined bargaining unit. The CAC has not been notified of any change to those figures. The Panel is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are Union members.

8. The Panel has considered each of the qualifying conditions for the holding of a ballot in paragraph 22(4).

9. With regard to the condition in paragraph 22(4)(a), the Panel has not been given any evidence by either the Employer or Union that would lead it to conclude that it would be in the interests of good industrial relations to hold a ballot. The Panel is satisfied that this condition does not apply.

10. Turning to the condition set out in paragraph 22(4)(b) no Union members within the bargaining unit have informed the CAC that they do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel is satisfied that this condition does not apply.

11. With regard to the condition in paragraph 22(4)(c) no membership evidence has been produced which might give rise to doubts as to whether any of the Union members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel is satisfied that this condition does not apply.

Declaration

12. Following consideration of all the evidence that has been presented to it, the Panel declares, in accordance with paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, that UNIFI is recognised by the Laiki Bank as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of all staff, on contracts based in the UK, in Bands A, B, C and D at six locations in London and one in Birmingham.

Ms Mary Stacey

Mr Rod Hastie

Mr Dennis Scard

27 August 2004