Case Number: TUR1/424/(2005)
25 May 2005
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER TO ARRANGE FOR THE HOLDING OF A
SECRET BALLOT OR AWARD RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
The Parties:
NUJ
and
AOL (UK) Limited
Introduction
1. The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC,
dated 11 January 2005, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining
purposes by AOL (UK) Limited (the Employer), in respect of a bargaining unit,
comprising 'Staff working at no.80 Hammersmith Road, within the Production
Department, who are profile 3 or below, who are eligible to join the NUJ, and
who have as a material part of their job function ‘getting content up onto the
AOL service (or Editorial) roles’.
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 Linda Dickens (Panel
Chair), Mr Kenneth Anthony and Mr Keith Sonnet (Members). The Case
Manager appointed to support the Panel was Maverlie Tavares.
3. By a decision dated 14 February 2005, the
Panel accepted the Union’s
application. At a hearing held on 30 March
2005 (where for the purposes of this hearing Derek Hodgson replaced Keith
Sonnet as a Panel Member), the Parties agreed that the appropriate bargaining
unit was “Staff working
at number 80 Hammersmith Road, within Online Consumer Experience Department,
who are profile 3 or below, who are eligible to join the NUJ, and who have as a
material part of their job function “getting content up onto the AOL service”
(or editorial) roles. This definition includes trainers or senior trainers to
the extent that their roles are primarily focused on the provision of training
in relation to the hardware or software and hardware tools which are used by
AOL employees to “get content up onto the AOL service.””
4. 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 the three qualifying conditions in
paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3)
requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found there is a majority
of union members in the bargaining unit if any of these conditions is
fulfilled. These qualifying conditions
being:
“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.”
5. In an email received on 18 April 2005, the Union stated that it believed it had
majority membership in the bargaining unit, and that the CAC should award it
recognition without a ballot. In a response to the Union’s claim, received by fax on 21
April 2005, the
Employer argued that a ballot should be held as qualifying conditions applied.
6. To
assist its deliberations the Panel requested various confidential checks be
undertaken by the Case Manager. A membership check and check on emails received
prior to the hearing held on 11th May 2005 were requested. Reports on these
were sent to the parties prior to the hearing. A check on a Union petition was
requested at the hearing and conducted thereafter. A report on this check was
sent to the Parties on 24 May 2005. We are satisfied that all the
checks were undertaken appropriately and impartially.
Membership and Other Checks
7. To assist the Panel’s consideration on whether to award the
Union recognition without a ballot or to order a secret ballot, the Panel
proposed a check to be undertaken by the Case Manager of the level of union
membership within the agreed bargaining unit. Both Parties agreed that
the Employer would supply, to the Case Manager, a list of the names of workers
within the bargaining unit and that the Union would supply, to the Case Manager, a
list of union members within that unit to enable a comparison to be
undertaken. It was explicitly agreed with the Parties that, to preserve
confidentiality, neither list would be copied to the other party.
The agreed arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 22
April 2005
to both Parties. The information from the Union was received on 22
April 2005 and
from the Employer on 23 April 2005.
8. The Employer provided a list containing the names, department
and business titles of 78 workers. The Union provided a list of 42 members’ names,
addresses and the date of joining the Union.
9. The
result of the membership check was that of the 78 workers listed by the Employer
as in the agreed bargaining unit, 42 were members of the NUJ; a membership
level of 53.85%.
10. The Employer raised a question concerning the status of union
membership and under direction of the Panel the Case Manager requested further information from the
Union. In a letter received on 9 May 2005 the Union stated that
there were currently 44 NUJ members in the bargaining unit (2 had joined following the Case
Manager’s membership check) and their subscriptions were all fully paid. The Union explained
that 15 members paid their subscriptions
at a reduced rate for the first year, as permitted under the NUJ's rules. The
names of 42 members and those who were paying reduced subscriptions had been
provided to the Case Manager on a confidential basis to confirm this on 9 May 2005.
Emails received from workers in the
bargaining unit
11. The Case Manager received 25 emails from
workers at the company regarding a ballot taking place. The Panel directed that
the Case Manager should conduct a confidential check to confirm that the emails
were from workers in the bargaining unit, and to ascertain if any were union
members. A report was circulated to the Parties and the Panel on 25th
April 2005. Both Parties agreed that the list provided by
the Employer and the Union for the purposes of the comparison to be undertaken
of the union membership level in the bargaining unit, could also be used for
this check. It was explicitly agreed with the Parties that, to preserve
confidentiality, neither list would be copied to the other party.
The agreed arrangements were confirmed in the letter dated 22
April 2005
to both Parties.
12. The
result of the check was that 15 of the 25 emails
expressed the view that a ballot should take place. They were not identical but
were similar in nature. One read “I would
like to have a confidential ballot to decide if I want automatic recognition by
the NUJ.” Of the 14 emails, nine were from non-union members in the
bargaining unit, five from union members within the bargaining unit. One was
from a worker not in the bargaining unit. A further 5 emails, all from
union members in the bargaining unit, stated they wanted the union to be
recognised. Three emails were identical and stated “I am writing to confirm that I would support NUJ recognition at AOL as
soon as possible. Union representation will be a huge benefit to staff who have
had no formal assistance in discussions with the company in the past.” The
remaining two emails expressed support for Union recognition. The five
remaining emails were from workers who expressed concern about the NUJ having
bargaining rights over the bargaining unit. None of these was from a union
member. One was “surprised to now be part
of the bargaining unit” and wanted to know why the Union had not organised a meeting
explaining the pro’s and con’s of Union membership. Another was concerned that
employees were being asked to “surrender
individual bargaining rights and/or other employment rights without, at the
very minimum, being entitled to engage in a democratic process to determine
union recognition.” They all wanted to be given the opportunity to express
their views on the matter.
Union Petition
13. Prior
to the hearing the Union
provided information on the results of a petition it had conducted as evidence
of support that it should be awarded recognition without a ballot. It said the
petition had been signed on 9 May 2005 and 10 May 2005 and 60 of the 73 people currently in
posts in the bargaining unit had been approached. In an email of 10th
May the Union claimed 49 people had signed the
petition. The Panel proposed an independent check on the petition which was
provided to the Case Manager at the hearing. The Parties agreed the information
on employees from the Employer received at the CAC on 23
April 2005,
and information on members received from the Union on 4 May 2005, for the purpose of establishing the
level of union membership within the bargaining unit, should be used for the
purpose of this check. It was explicitly agreed with both Parties at the
hearing that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be
copied to the other Party.
14. The Union provided a petition
containing 50 signatures. The petition contained the following statement: “We
the undersigned want NUJ recognition at AOL UK based on proven majority
membership and without the need for a ballot.”
Beneath this were three columns: “Name,” “Job Title,” and “Signature.”
The petition was not dated. The Employer list showed 78 workers in the
bargaining unit.
15. The Case Manager’s report dated 13 May 2005 was sent to the Parties on 24 May 2005. This found that of 50 signatures, two were not
on the Employer’s list and a further two were not legible. The remaining 46
signatories constituted 59% (rounded) of the bargaining unit. 30 of the 46 were
union members; 16 not members.
Submissions
16. The Parties were informed by letter on 27 April 2005 that a hearing
would be held to help determine whether or not a secret ballot should be
ordered and they were invited to make any further submissions on this issue.
17. The hearing was held on 11 May 2005 and the names of those who attended
the hearing are appended to this decision. For the purpose of this decision,
Jackie Patel replaced Ken Anthony, and Derek Hodgson replaced Keith Sonnet as
Panel Members.
18. Submissions were received by the Employer
on 4 May 2005 and from the Union on 26 April 2005 and 9 May 2005. The Union submission stated that
evidence would be submitted at the hearing in support of the Union contention
that people in the bargaining unit wanted recognition without a ballot. The Panel
requested further information regarding this evidence prior to the hearing and
an email from the Union
of 10 May 2005 set out information about a petition, referred to above. All
correspondence and submissions were copied to the Parties and the Panel.
19. At the hearing the Employer stated it did not object to the
petition being presented and a copy was given to the Case Manager. Also at the hearing the Employer referred to
emails it had received from employees in the bargaining unit and said it could
provide these emails on a confidential basis. The Union agreed to
this as long as the Case Manager would check whether or not the emails were
from union members. The three emails were forwarded to the Case Manager after the hearing. The Employer also
tabled a communication sent out by the Union on 9 May 2005. Again the Union agreed that this could be accepted. The Panel was willing to admit these late
submissions with the agreement of the Parties. During the hearing the Employer
indicated that at least one of its employees had agreed to speak on the
telephone to the Panel if requested to confirm and elaborate on what was
reported to be his/her position but had been unwilling to appear in person. Having
heard the evidence, the Panel decided it was not necessary nor appropriate to
take evidence in this way, not least as it would not be open to any cross
questioning by the Union.
Brief Summary of the Union’s case
20. The Union claimed
it was legally entitled to recognition without a ballot on the basis of majority
membership in the agreed bargaining unit. It said membership had increased
during the statutory recognition process because employees wanted the NUJ to be
recognised for collective bargaining.
They had joined the Union to
achieve collective representation and collective bargaining. The Union had not
sought to mislead or give inaccurate information about the implications of
recognition; rather it had tried to covey complicated matters simply and to
fully inform people. The Employer had
plenty of opportunities to put its case to employees and had been emphasising
negative aspects. There was no need for a ballot to test opinion – there was
already sufficient evidence of support.
21. The Union argued
that the majority of people in the bargaining unit wanted recognition to be
awarded without a ballot, as demonstrated by its petition. Union officials had
been under pressure from members to reach a conclusion. It stated that it had
originally sought voluntary recognition in October 2003 and that there had
already been considerable delay, putting a strain on relationships between the
chapel and the company. Quick resolution
by automatic recognition as provided for in the statute would be better for
industrial relations in the company, and the Union feared the
balloting process could be acrimonious. It saw the Employer’s allegations
regarding aggressive recruitment (which it said were unsubstantiated) as an
indication of increasingly hostility towards the Union on the part of the
Employer and feared that undue pressure might be brought to bear on staff in
the bargaining unit to vote against recognition if a ballot were ordered.
Brief Summary of the Employer’s
case
22. The Employer argued that a ballot would
be in the interests of good industrial relations, in keeping with the company’s
culture and carried no disadvantages. A ballot would be democratic, in keeping
with best management practice and natural justice. The Employer had
consistently argued for a ballot to test actual support. The Employer stated that
the circumstances in which people joined the Union gave rise
to doubts over whether they wished the Union to enter
into collective bargaining on their behalf.
23. It stated that the union membership
level represented a small majority and had only been achieved since 28 January 2005 due to a vigorous
and persistent campaign. It felt that membership could not be taken as
indicating a desire for collective bargaining and a ballot would allow everyone
to express their views, having been fully informed about the issues. It alleged
that the workers had been given misleading information (whether innocently or
deliberately), about the advantages and implications of joining the Union and
supporting recognition and that workers were confused. The Employer submitted
that the additional membership achieved recently which had produced the
majority membership in the bargaining unit was quite possibly influenced by
misrepresentations. The Employer also stated that automatic recognition would
not allow the company to put its views forward to the employees.
24. The Employer contended that a number of
workers had indicated they did not want union recognition or that they wanted a
ballot. To impose recognition on them without a ballot, therefore, would not be
fair. Other employees wanted clarification about collective bargaining or more
information, which could be given during the balloting process. It argued that failure to hold a ballot would
cause resentment and tension and damage industrial relations within the department
and the company as a whole. A ballot would also be in the interests of the NUJ,
leading to more effective bargaining. The Employer further argued that a ballot
would clear the air and enable all parties to move forward constructively
whatever the result.
Considerations
25. The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it
is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are
members of the Union. If the
Panel is satisfied that the majority of the bargaining unit are union members,
it must then decide if any of the three conditions in paragraph 22(4) are
fulfilled. If the Panel considers any of
them are fulfilled it must give notice to the Parties that it intends to
arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.
26. On
25 April 2005,
following a membership check, the Case Manager produced a report which showed
that the Union had a 54% membership in the bargaining unit. At
the hearing the Union claimed it had recruited two additional members
since the check. However, both Parties agreed that the Panel should use the
figures presented for the 25th April check. The Panel is satisfied
that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.
27. As
stated in paragraph 4 above, if the Panel is satisfied that the majority of the
workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union it must issue a declaration of recognition unless it considers that any
of the three qualifying conditions are fulfilled. We look at each of the
qualifying conditions.
“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.”
We were not so
informed. The Employer did not seek to
argue for a ballot on this ground.
“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.”
28. The
Employer had asked the CAC to take into account that the Union made introductory offers to new
members. At the hearing the Employer indicated that it did not wish to pursue
the matter of discounted membership. The Panel is satisfied that the fact that
15 of the 42 union members in the bargaining unit are paying their union
subscriptions at a reduced rate for the first year (as provided for by the
Union rules) does not give rise to doubts whether they want the Union to
conduct collective bargaining.
29. The
Employer argued that the circumstances in which some union members became union
members did give rise to such doubts as, firstly, union representatives used
aggressive or intimidating tactics and, secondly, union literature contained
inaccuracies and misrepresentations which may have unduly influenced the
decision of individuals to join.
30. The
Panel has considered very carefully the issue of the alleged use of
intimidating recruitment tactics and can find no evidence that any union
members were coerced into joining. At the most it appears to us that a few
(perhaps only one or two) people in the bargaining unit may have found the
efforts of branch representatives to get them to sign a petition to be
unwelcome. The Employer has been keeping in contact with employees in the bargaining
unit through line management, written and informal contact and has encouraged
employees to talk to named people. Although (as was argued to us) individuals
may not be comfortable raising concerns about the Union in public, the Panel
feels that had there been concern about undue pressure to join the Union this
would have been expressed to the Employer in private via email or otherwise. At
the hearing we were informed that one employee had complained about repeated,
persistent approaches from the union representative who stood ‘over me in a way
a less confident person would find hard to resist’ and that a second employee
expressed a similar sentiment. The emails submitted by the Employer (none of
which came from members of the Union) contained no direct statements of this kind and no formal
complaints have been made, although the company confirmed it has procedures
which could be used.
31. The
literature referred to by the Employer as containing misleading and inaccurate
information is an email sent by the NUJ to members of the bargaining unit dated
14 April 2005, which was included in the Employer’s submission, and an
email of 9 May 2005 which, with the agreement of the Union, was tabled at the hearing. The
Employer argued that the first of these may have influenced those who recently
joined the Union to join, and invited the Panel to
take these recent communications as indicative of arguments that might have
been made at earlier stages to persuade people into membership. The Union
communications included some broad brush general statements about the
advantages of trade unionism and achievements in other companies which were not
supported by evidence, and some statements whose simple language failed to
capture the legal complexities of certain issues. One referred to the positive role of the Union in a recent redundancy situation at
AOL, and in respect of an individual’s maternity leave. The Employer disputed
any such role. The Union
acknowledged that reference to maternity leave was an unintentional error and
should have referred to flexible working but maintained it had ‘argued for
better redundancy terms’ as stated in the email, although no formal meetings or
negotiations had taken place between the Union and the Employer.
32. The
Employer argued that the Union communication could have misled people into
thinking the scope of statutory collective bargaining would include redundancy
(a sensitive issue at the present time as the company has undergone some
restructuring). Collective bargaining may include redundancy if this is agreed
between the Parties but statutory recognition is for pay, hours and holidays. The
legal rights in respect of redundancy refer to consultation with a view to
reaching agreement. We feel that had a more legally detailed and precise
rendering been provided it is most unlikely that it would have made a
difference to whether or not an employee joined the Union. However, even if an employee had
joined the Union thinking that there might be
negotiation over redundancy, it would mean that the individual concerned wanted
more collective bargaining, not that they did not want the Union to conduct bargaining on their
behalf.
33. In
considering whether any of the information led to a significant number of union
members joining the Union
who might not wish the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, the most
relevant statement in union communications concerns the ability of individual
employees to ‘opt-out’ once collective bargaining is established. The Employer
argued that, by saying this was possible, the Union implied (wrongly) that recognition
was a no risk option for people who might not want the Union to bargain on their behalf. At the
hearing the Employer acknowledged that the issue of whether or not recognising
a trade union for collective bargaining prevented an individual employee within
the bargaining unit from negotiating different terms and conditions with the Employer
was legally complex and agreed that different views on the issue could be
found. The Panel is of the view that the Union’s statement in its literature
that this kind of ‘opt-out’ is possible was an attempt to convey information in
simple terms, was based on its experience elsewhere, and is no more, and no
less inaccurate or misleading than the Employer’s statement in its
communications to employees in the bargaining unit that such an ‘opt-out’ it is
not possible (e.g. the Note to OCE Employees of 8 April 2005 entitled ‘No
Opt-out…and risk of imposed union recognition without ballot’ and email of 12 May 2005). In both cases we accept that
the statements were made in good faith.
34. We
were told (and it was confirmed by one of the emails made available after the
hearing) that one person had signed the Union petition in the belief the Union
could negotiate over redundancy and that as an individual they could ‘opt-out’
of collectively agreed terms. The Union stated that this person was removed from the petition. No
evidence was produced that any one had actually joined the Union on the basis of any of the statements which the Employer
argued to be inaccurate or misleading, and certainly not a ‘significant number’
of union members as required by the qualifying condition.
We do not find this condition
fulfilled.
“The CAC is satisfied
that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.”
35. The
legislators have provided that recognition of the Union must be awarded where a majority of
workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union unless any of the qualifying conditions
apply. Some of the arguments made by the Employer in relation to the qualifying
conditions appeared to the Panel to be taking issue with the legislation’s
provision for ‘automatic recognition’. For example, the Employer argued that it
would be unfair, undemocratic and contrary to natural justice and best
management practice to impose recognition on a large minority of non-union
workers in the bargaining unit without consulting them.
36. The
Employer argued that it was in the NUJ’s interest to have a ballot (a lack of
which would decrease its ability to bargain effectively). The NUJ rejected
this, maintaining it wished for recognition to be awarded without a ballot as
allowed for by the legislation, and that this in its interests and those of its
members. The Panel is of the view that it is for the Union to define its own interests. We also
feel that an Employer’s desire that there should be a ballot, however strongly
and consistently held, as in this case, is not of itself persuasive that a
ballot is needed in the interests of good industrial relations.
37. The
Employer further argued that to award recognition without a ballot would deny
it the opportunity to put its case to its employees about the implications of
union recognition. We do not see any such lack of opportunity as necessarily
harmful to good industrial relations but in any case evidence submitted by the
Employer indicates that there has been opportunity in this case. While not
acting inappropriately, and respecting the rights of its employees to join a
trade union, the Employer has expressed its views. For example one
communication to employees states: ‘when it comes to determining pay, and other
terms and conditions we believe it neither necessary not helpful for good
employee relations to silo off one group within the business for separate
consideration.’ It has also sketched possible consequences of recognition as it
sees them, for example in relation to pay determination, and has pointed out to
employees that the Union acts on behalf of its members and that, if recognised,
the NUJ would have negotiation rights in respect of people who would not be
union members. The Employer has also
encouraged employees to discuss any comments or questions ‘on the potential
implications of union recognition’ with line management or HR business partner
or other managers (e.g. Notes to OCE employees of 1 April 2005 and 15 April 2005).
38. The
Panel feels that employees in the bargaining unit (who are educated, white
collar employees) have been able to make informed decisions on whether to join
the Union and whether to express support for
recognition to be awarded without a ballot.
In reaching this view we have taken full account of the Employer’s
arguments that that a significant number of employees have been provided with
misleading information by the Union (whether innocently or deliberately), and
the Employer’s contention that there is a lack of knowledge among the workforce
as to the difference between union membership, union recognition and collective
bargaining, and a lack of understanding as to what collective bargaining may
cover. Our examination of all the available evidence leads us not to accept
these arguments.
39. In
its written submission the Employer argued that there was a substantial desire
for a secret ballot on the part of employees in the bargaining unit and that
failure to listen to their views would damage industrial relations within AOL.
This desire was stated to be demonstrated by the emails sent to the CAC after
the Employer had provided individuals in the bargaining unit with the email
address of the Case Manager on 8 April 2005 and again on 15 April 2005 and
invited them to express their views on union recognition via a confidential
ballot if they so wished. 15 of the 25 emails received expressed the view a
ballot should take place and another 5 said, among other things, they wanted to
opportunity to express their views. Taken together these 20 represent 26% of
employees in the bargaining unit.
40. The
Union’s petition, undertaken just prior to
the hearing on 11 May 2005 showed 46 people (59% of the bargaining
unit) in support of recognition based on majority membership without a ballot.
Following the information about the petition submitted to the CAC by the Union the Employer again contacted all
employees in the bargaining unit by email encouraging them to make their views
known to the Case Manager. The email noted that 50 people had signed the
petition and that the CAC could award recognition without a ballot. It said
‘some people in the bargaining unit have made it clear that they signed this
petition based on misleading information that had been provided by the NUJ. I
therefore want to make sure you understand exactly what statutory recognition
of the NUJ would mean and what it would not mean’. The document then set out information about the scope
of recognition; stated that there is no right to opt out; that the NUJ is
required only to consult its members and that the Union had not taken part in
previous discussions on terms and conditions (including on
redundancy). Finally it stated ‘If recognition is imposed by the CAC without a
ballot, AOL will fulfil its statutory obligations. However,
if you signed the petition or expressed support for automatic recognition based
on a different understanding to that outlined above - for example that the NUJ
would negotiate redundancy terms or that you have the right to opt out –
and you would like an opportunity to decide for yourself by means of a ballot,
based on the full facts - I suggest you contact the CAC immediately..’ The
email address of the Case Manager was given.
Following this email, six employees in the bargaining unit contacted the
Case Manager, four said they wanted recognition without a ballot; two asked for
a ballot. These two were among the 46 employees who had signed the petition
requesting recognition without a ballot.
41. Even if we
pay no consideration to this post-hearing email from the Employer, the Panel
considers that employees in the bargaining unit have been given ample
opportunity and encouragement to express their views about the desirability of
a ballot, and have been given sufficient information to understand the
consequences of doing (or not doing) so.
In the light of the evidence it would not be reasonable for us to
conclude that there is a substantial desire for a ballot on the part of
employees in the bargaining unit. It follows, therefore, that the absence of a
ballot will not automatically cause resentment and ill feeling amongst
employees and so damage industrial relations, as the Employer contended. Given
that a majority of employees in the bargaining unit have expressed a desire to
go forward without a ballot, ordering one may cause resentment on their part.
42. A ballot is
sometimes arranged in the interests of good industrial relations where, among
other things, there are good reasons why an Employer remains unconvinced that
the majority of employees in the bargaining unit support recognition and/or to
clear the air where there has been a lot of acrimony in the workplace during
the statutory recognition process. The Employer argued that a ballot would have
benefits for good industrial relations within AOL because it would ‘clear the
air and enable all parties to move forward constructively’. In this case, however, on the evidence before
us, we see no reason why the Employer should not accept that a majority of the
workers (including some who are not members of the NUJ) support recognition of
the Union for collective bargaining. Further,
we are of the view that despite differing views and inevitable lobbying of
support for those views, dealings between the Parties and among the employees
at the workplace have been conducted in a reasonable, mature and responsible
manner. Observing the process to date, as reflected in the evidence before us,
we attach some weight to the Union’s argument that relationships are becoming more strained as
time passes without resolution of the recognition issue.
43. Based on our
expert consideration of the evidence before us, and for the reasons indicated,
we are not satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good
industrial relations.
Decision
44. The CAC is satisfied that a majority of
the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the NUJ. None of
the three qualifying conditions set out in para 22(4) is fulfilled. Therefore
the CAC declares that the NUJ is recognised as entitled to conduct collective
bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit,
namely staff working at
number 80 Hammersmith Road, within Online Consumer Experience Department, who
are profile 3 or below, who are eligible to join the NUJ, and who have as a
material part of their job function “getting content up onto the AOL service”
(or editorial) roles. This definition includes trainers or senior trainers to
the extent that their roles are primarily focused on the provision of training
in relation to the hardware or software and hardware tools which are used by
AOL employees to “get content up onto the AOL service”.
Panel
Professor Linda
Dickens
Mrs Jackie
Patel
Mr Derek
Hodgson
25 May
2005
Appendix
Names of those who attended the hearing
For the Union:
Ms J Lennox Assistant
Organiser, NUJ
Mr M Barter Northern
Regional Organiser, NUJ
Mr S Lodge Union
representative from AOL (UK) Ltd
For the Employer:
Mr P Whall Vice President Legal (AOL (UK) Ltd
Mr J Shaw Vice President Human Resources (AOL (UK) Ltd
Ms D Gilbey Vice
President Online Consumer Experience (AOL (UK) Ltd