Case Number TUR1/435/2005
27 October
2005
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND
LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:
RECOGNITION
DECLARATION THAT UNION IS ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED
The Parties:
Amicus
and
Fibrothetford
Introduction
1. Amicus (the Union) submitted an
application to the CAC dated 1 March 2005 that it should be recognised for
collective bargaining by Fibrothetford (the Employer) in respect of a
bargaining unit comprising “All workers except senior managers i.e. operations
and maintenance manager upwards at Thetford Power
Station, Munford Road, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24
1LX”.
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 Linda Dickens MBE, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Ms Judy McKnight
and Mr Mike Regan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah
Kendall.
3. By a decision dated 31 March 2005, the Panel accepted the
Union's application and, as no agreement was reached on
the bargaining unit a hearing was held on 8 June 2005. In a
decision dated 28 June 2005
the Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was that specified by
the Union in its application, namely “All workers except
senior managers i.e. Operations and Maintenance Manager upwards at Thetford Power Station, Munford
Road, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 1LX”.
4. The Panel, not satisfied that a majority
of workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union,
gave notice on 1 July 2005
that it intended to arrange a ballot.
The Panel asked for the Parties views on the form of the ballot. Initially both the Union
and the Employer, in letters dated 7 and 8
July 2005 respectively, informed the CAC that the preferred ballot
type was a workplace ballot. However,
following further communications with the Case Manager concerning shift
patterns and eligibility for a postal vote, the Employer in an email dated 6 September 2005 and the Union
by way of a fax dated 7 September 2005
both stated that a postal ballot would be the cleanest and most cost effective
option. The Panel, after considering the
complexity of the shift patterns and the views of the Parties decided in
accordance with paragraph 25(4) that a postal ballot should take place.
The Ballot
6. Once an access agreement had been
reached by the Parties, the Panel notified the Parties on 19 September 2005 that Popularis
Limited was appointed as the Qualified Independent Person (QIP). The QIP conducted the ballot of all workers
in the bargaining unit on the question of whether they wished the Union
to be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining on their behalf and
the Parties were notified accordingly.
The balloting period commenced on 20 September 2005 and closed on 17 October 2005.
Ballot papers were posted to workers on 5 October 2005.
7. The Union in an
email dated 11 October 2005
informed the Case Manager that a number of individuals who were believed to be
in the bargaining unit had not received ballot papers. The Case Manager forwarded this information
onto the QIP for action. The QIP informed the Case Manager on 12 October 2005 that two named
individuals were not on the Employer’s list of relevant workers.
8. The Panel directed that the Employer
provide names and addresses of the two individuals so that ballot papers could
be issued by the QIP. This was done by
way of two emails both dated 14
October 2005 and the Employer’s confirmed that they were included
in the bargaining unit and were entitled to vote.
9. The Panel stated that the ballot would
close at 10.00am on 17 October 2005 for all those individuals who had been sent
a ballot paper prior to 14 October 2005 but would extend the ballot period to
10.00am 20 October 2005, in accordance with paragraph 25(3)(b)
of the Schedule, to ensure that the two workers were given the opportunity to
vote in the ballot.
10. The QIP reported to the CAC, on 20 October 2005, that of the 28
workers in the bargaining unit, 23 workers had voted in the ballot. This represented 82.14% of the eligible
vote. Of those who had voted in the
ballot, 21 (91.30%) workers had voted in support of the proposal that the Union
be recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining whilst 2 (8.70%) workers
had voted to reject the proposal. The
number of votes supporting the proposal as a percentage of the bargaining unit
was 75%.
11. In accordance with paragraph 29(2) of
Schedule A1 of the Act the CAC informed the Union and
the Employer on 24 October 2005
of the result of the ballot.
Declaration that the Union is entitled to be recognised
12. The ballot establishes that a majority of
the workers voting and at least 40% of the workers constituting the bargaining
unit support the proposal that the Union be recognised
for the purpose of conducting collective bargaining by the Employer in respect
of the determined bargaining unit. This
satisfies the conditions under which the CAC must issue a declaration in favour
of recognition in accordance with paragraph 29(3) of Schedule A1 to the Act.
13. The CAC declares that the Union be
recognised by Fibrothetford as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on
behalf of all workers except senior managers i.e. Operations and Maintenance
Manager upwards at Thetford Power Station, Munford
Road, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 1LX”.
Panel:
Professor Linda
Dickens MBE
Ms Judy McKnight
Mr Mike Regan
27 October 2005