6 May 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:
AMICUS
and
Ford Motor Company Limited
Introduction
1. AMICUS (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 7 April 2005 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Ford Motor Company Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “LL6 Management population – first line managers” located “nationally in various sites with some who are seconded to work overseas for specified periods of time but who are department based in the UK”. The bargaining unit, the Union explained, had been selected as the LL6 management population was dealt with separately by the Employer and was the generic first line management grade right across the company. The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 8 April 2005. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 14 April 2005 which was duly 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 John Purcell, Chairman, and, as Members, Mrs Jackie Patel and Mr Keith Sonnet. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.
3. The
Panel extended the statutory deadline for it to decide if the Union’s
application was to be accepted to 6 May 2005 to allow for a membership and
support check to be conducted, for the Parties to comment on the results of the
check and to allow time for the Panel to consider said comments before arriving
at its decision.
Issues
4. 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 8; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule); and therefore is to be accepted.
5. In its response to the Union’s application, the Employer stated that whilst it agreed the composition of the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union it disagreed with the Union’s estimate as to the number of workers therein explaining that, as of 13 April 2005, there were 1165 workers in the bargaining unit rather than the figure of 1176 as given by the Union in its application. As to whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer confirmed that 256 workers in the bargaining unit paid subscriptions to the Union by the “check off” method through the company’s payroll. This, it submitted, would indicate a lower level of membership than the 296 claimed by the Union in its application. The Employer, when asked if it considered that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition of the Union, stated that, based on the Union’s own figures, the level of membership in the bargaining unit was approximately only 25% of the bargaining unit and this was despite a sustained recruitment drive during which the Union had had broad access to the workers in the bargaining unit.
6. The Employer did not contend that the
Membership and Support Check
7. To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed a check to be undertaken by the Case Manager of the level of union membership and support for recognition within the proposed bargaining unit. It was agreed with the Parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of Union members within that unit and a copy of its petition in support of recognition to enable comparisons to be undertaken. It was explicitly agreed with the Parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and the petition would not be copied to the other Party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 19 April 2005 from the Case Manager to both Parties. The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 21 April 2005 and the information from the Employer was received on 22 April 2005. The Panel is satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the Parties. A report of the result of the check of the level of Union membership and of support for recognition was circulated to the Panel and the Parties on 26 April 2005.
8. The list supplied by the Employer showed
that there were 1165 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union
contained 288 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of
Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 280, a membership level of 24.03%. The petition supplied by the Union took the form of individual sheets for each
name/signatory. There were 464
individual forms submitted by the Union.
449 of the names/signatures were in the proposed bargaining unit, a
figure that represented 38.54% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 449 names/signatories, 245 were
members of the Union (21.03% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 204 were
non-members (17.51% of the proposed bargaining unit). However, of the 245 petition forms returned
by union members, 49 did not bear a signature and of the 204 forms returned by
non-members, 48 did not bear a signature.
9. There
were three versions of the form used for the petition although the proposition
was the same in each case. The
petition forms were headed as follows:
“STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Amicus the Union CAC
Application for Union Recognition at Ford UK Ltd for LL6 Grades.”
There
then followed the proposition:
“I am currently employed at the above company in the proposed bargaining
unit covering LL6 grades and support the Union’s claim for recognition for the
purposes of collective bargaining in pay and other terms and conditions of
employment.”
10. Each form asked the worker to print their
name and give their home address, home email address, work email address and
the date. Two of the types of form used
also asked for a signature: the remaining form having no provision for a
signature. Two of the forms asked the
worker to confirm whether they were currently a member of the Union and that
they were an LL6 Grade employed by the company.
Tick boxes were present so workers could answer “yes” or “no” to either
of the questions. The third version of
the form posed the same questions but only provided one tick box for the worker
to respond. One of the forms named a
Union official and a freepost address for its return, another gave the same
information but added that the form could be returned by email to the email
address provided, with a covering note which verified where it had been sent
from and the third version of the form had no such information as to how the
form should be returned. The petition forms were all dated between
November 2004 and March 2005.
11. No additional checks were carried out to
verify the information supplied by the Parties. The Parties were then invited to lodge
comments on the result of the membership and support check.
Union’s comments on the result of the
membership and support check
12. The Union, in a letter of 29 April 2005, stated that it believed that the membership check had demonstrated that the Union passed the tests set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule.
13. Firstly, paragraph 36(1)(a) required the
14. Secondly, paragraph 36(1)(b) asked whether a majority of the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. Again, the Union submitted, the membership and support check clearly demonstrated that this test was met. The Union considered that it was reasonable to assume that the Union’s membership (24.03%) would vote in favour of recognition. The Panel had also had the opportunity to consider the petition provided by the Union which showed that 204 non-members had signed the petition in support of union recognition, this representing 17.51% of the bargaining unit. The Panel was asked to note that, although 48 non-members did not sign the petition, the Union had in its possession email confirmation from the individuals concerned that provision of their names was intended to indicate support for recognition. The Union offered to provide copies of these emails to the CAC on a confidential basis. These 48 non-members comprised 4.12% of the bargaining unit. Those individuals had made a clear statement that they supported the Union’s claim for recognition and it was logical to assume that they would also vote in favour of recognition if given the opportunity.
15. If, the
Employer’s comments on the result of the
membership and support check
16. The Employer, in a letter dated 29 April 2005, accepted that, on the basis of the statistics in the Case Managers report, the Union had met the first test under paragraph 36 in that 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. The second requirement of paragraph 36 was that the Union’s application would not be admissible by the CAC unless it decided that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition of the Union. The figures within the Case Manager’s report did not indicate that a majority of the LL6 workers would support union recognition and therefore, the Employer submitted, this requirement had not been met.
17. The number of Union members in the bargaining unit represented less than a quarter of the total LL6 population and even if this proportion was aggregated with the proportion of non-members that had signed the petition, the total possible support was still far short of a majority. In considering the statistics the Employer asked that the Panel took into account the fact that the Union had been able to access the workers in the bargaining unit during its vigorous recruitment campaign over the past year through emails, at meetings, via recruitment literature and through union notice boards where invitations to join the union had been displayed. It had been easy for workers in the bargaining unit to contact or respond to the Union and either register as members or offer support by way of the petition. The Employer recognised the Union in respect of technical and other professional staff below management level and there were many Staff Union representatives on site who were able to provide information about union membership.
18. The Employer had not sought to influence the workers in the bargaining unit. The workers were employed in a unionised environment and were able to witness, at first hand, the collaborative approach the Employer adopted with the unions it recognised and their representatives. In these circumstances, the Employer considered it unlikely that any significant further support would be expressed for the Union by the workers in the bargaining unit who were not members of the Union or who had not signed the Union’s petition. The Employer believed therefore, that it was unlikely that a majority of the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition.
Considerations
19. In
deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the
admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this
decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence and argument submitted
by the Employer and the Union in reaching its decision.
20. The
Panel is satisfied that the
21. The
Panel has to decide whether, under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule, members
of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining
unit and also, whether, under paragraph 36(1)(b), a majority of workers
constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as
entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
Paragraph 36(1)(a)
22. The Panel is satisfied that the check of Union membership referred to in
paragraph 8 of this decision, which showed that 24.03% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit
were members of the Union, was properly conducted. The Panel has therefore decided that the level
of membership in the bargaining unit does constitute at least 10% of the
workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a).
Paragraph 36(1)(b)
23. The test in paragraph 36(1)(b), is
whether a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit
would be likely to favour recognition of the
24. The Union has, in its letter of 29 April 2005, misconstrued the results of the membership and support check. The total of 204 for the number of non-members that had returned a petition form included those that had returned forms without a signature. The total number of those that had returned both signed and unsigned petition forms amounted to 17.51% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. However, in its submissions the Union has taken this figure, 17.51%, and added to it 4.12%, that is the percentage of non-members that had returned forms without a signature, to arrive at a higher figure of 21.63% non-member support. Using the same method of calculating support, that is by combining the number of Union members within the proposed bargaining unit (24.03%) and the number of non-members that had returned a petition form, with or without a signature, (17.51%) the correct total would be 41.54%.
25. The Panel accepts that using this methodology, taking the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit in addition to the amount of non-union member support in the petition, can prove a useful indicator of the degree of support for recognition of a union within a proposed bargaining unit.
26. However, in considering the issue of
likely support, the Panel has also considered the context of the petition as
well as the bare figures. The Employer, in its letter of 29 April
2005, has argued that if the above approach was adopted, the total possible
support for the Union is far short of a majority. The correct test however is whether the Panel
is satisfied that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely
to favour recognition and the Panel should take account of all relevant factors
in approaching its consideration of whether this test has been met. The Employer makes the point that the Union has
been able to access the workers in its proposed bargaining unit during a
“vigorous” recruitment campaign over the past year and that it was able to
communicate with the workers through emails, at meetings and via material
posted on union notice boards. The
Employer submits that, as a consequence of this access, workers have been given
the opportunity to respond to the Union and either register as members or
volunteer to sign one of the Union’s petition forms. Notwithstanding the degree of access the
Union has enjoyed it is unlikely, so the Employer would argue, that any
significant further support from workers within the proposed bargaining unit would
be forthcoming. Conversely, the
27. The Panel, having carefully considered
the views of the Parties finds that it is not convinced by the Union’s
arguments. The Union has not provided
the Panel with any evidence that would persuade the Panel that this test is
satisfied. It is apparent from the
Employer’s submissions, which were not countered by the Union, that the Employer
has allowed the Union a degree of access, through various channels, that has
enabled it to communicate with the workers in the bargaining unit in order to
both increase its membership and gather evidence that a majority of the workers
would be likely to support recognition of the Union. The Union sets store by the fact that it was
not “formal” access but, nonetheless, it has had the opportunity to get its
message across to the workers without interference from the Employer. It is on this basis that the Panel considers
that the Union has not supplied sufficient evidence that a majority of workers
in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the
Union. The Union’s petition forms, which
totalled 449 out of a bargaining unit of 1165 workers showed a level of support
for the Union of 38.54% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In addition, the Panel is not satisfied that
the level of Union membership, (280 members representing 24.03% of the
bargaining unit), when considered with the level of support indicated by the
results of the Union’s petition, which included 204 non-members (17.51% of the
proposed bargaining unit) out of a possible 885 non-members within the
bargaining unit, provides sufficient evidence that the majority of workers
constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition
of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the
bargaining unit.
Decision
28. For the reasons given above, the Panel's decision is that the application is not accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Professor John Purcell, Chairman
6 May 2005