Case Number: TUR1/428/(2005)

9 March 2005

 

 

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

 

Tappex Threads Inserts Limited

 

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         T&GWU (the Union) submitted an application, dated 31 January 2005, to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Tappex Thread Inserts Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit consisting of “all production staff” at Tappex Thread Inserts Limited in Stratford upon Avon. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 February 2005.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 February 2005 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 deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Professor Paul Davies, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Dr Susan Corby and Mr Rod Hastie.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Maverlie Tavares.

Issues

 

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 9; 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 indicated that the number of workers in its proposed bargaining unit was 40 and that 20 of these workers were its members. The Union also stated that approximately 20 people had joined the Union recently.

 

5.         In its response to the Union’s application, the Employer disagreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer did not indicate what it thought the number of workers was in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. It stated that there were 46 workers in the company. The Employer did not know the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit or whether the majority of the workers supported recognition of the Union. 

 

Membership and petition check

 

6.         To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition of the trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed a confidential check be undertaken by the Case Manager. In letters to both parties dated 16 February 2005, the Case Manager requested that the Employer provide a list of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit and that the Union provide a list of its members within the proposed bargaining unit and a copy of the petition. The Case Manager’s letter confirmed that neither the lists nor the petition would be copied to the other party or the Panel. The Employer provided a list of 31 workers it stated were  within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the Union provided a list of 16 union members it stated were within its proposed bargaining unit, along with a copy of its petition. The petition contained 31 signatures. It was one A4 page in length and signatures were put to the following statement at the head of the page: “We, the undersigned, wish to be represented by the Transport & General Workers Union at our place of work.”  The petition was dated 24 September 2004.

 

7.         The membership check showed that there were 10 members of the Union within the proposed bargaining unit; a membership level of 32.26%. The check of the Union’s petition evidence established that there were 14 workers from within the proposed bargaining unit who had signed the Union’s petition, representing 45.16% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. Seven of the signatories were members of the Union, seven were non union members. A report of the result of the check of the membership level and the check of the petition was circulated to the parties on 21 February 2005.

 

Views of the Employer

 

8.         Following receipt of the membership and petition check, the Employer, by its letter dated 28 February 2005, stated that it disputed the union membership level, and believed it had decreased, due to members no longer paying their union dues. It also did not believe that the Union had showed that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would support recognition of the Union. It believed that the workers had not read the wording on the petition, but signed on the basis that they were asked the question “Would you mind if there was a union here?” For these reasons it believed that the CAC should decline the application.

 

Views of the Union

 

9.         The Union, in its letter dated 21 February 2005, stated it was surprised that six union members did not appear on the Employer’s list of workers as they were paying their membership fees.  It did not comment on whether it believed it had met the tests as outlined in paragraph 36 of the Schedule. The Union confirmed in a letter dated 7 March 2005 that the union members on the list it provided for the membership check, are all fully paid up members.

 

Considerations

 

10.       In deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied.

 

11.       The Employer has confirmed, in its response to the CAC dated 8 February 2005, that it received the Union’s original request for recognition dated 22 June 2004, and did not respond to the Union’s request. The Employer also stated it had not requested that Acas should assist. The Union’s application was received by the CAC on 2 February 2005 and a copy of its recognition request to the Employer was received on 15 February 2005. The Panel is satisfied on this evidence that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, on the evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining questions before the Panel are whether 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union, and whether the majority of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining.

 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

 

12.       The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s membership indicated that 32.26% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Employer has disputed that the members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the proposed bargaining unit as it does not believe members are still paying their subscriptions, but has provided no evidence to support this argument. The Panel, in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a), is satisfied that the 10% test is met with regard to the application.

 

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

 

13.       The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of 31 workers provided by the Employer indicated that 14 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 45.16%. If the test of a majority of workers being likely to favour recognition of the Union were a matter of simple arithmetic, then it would require the addition of only 2 more workers to the 14 petition signatories to show a numerical majority.   The Panel is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities it is likely that amongst the 17 other workers support of recognition would exist to this limited extent. It notes in particular that there were 3 union members (likely to favour recognition) whose names did not appear on the petition (at least in a readable form) and also 9 workers who signed the petition but whose signatures were unreadable. Of course, it is possible that membership of the two groups may overlap. It is also possible that some of the unreadable signatures are those of workers who are no longer employees of the company, since the petition evidence was gathered some five months ago.  Nevertheless, given the level of support demonstrated by the petition, the Panel thinks it more likely than not that a majority of the workers would be likely to favour recognition of the union for the purposes of collective bargaining. 

 

 

14.       Having given full consideration to the evidence made available to it, the Panel is satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

 

Decision

 

15.       The application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, was made in accordance with paragraph 11 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1. The application is therefore accepted by the CAC.

 

Professor Paul Davies

Dr Susan Corby

Mr Rod Hastie

 

 

 9 March 2005