Case Number: TUR1/467/[2005]

22 November 2005

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

National Union of Journalists

and

Trinity Mirror Southern Limited

Introduction

1. The National Union of Journalists, (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 August 2005 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Trinity Mirror Southern Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Employees in Grades A-C at Uxbridge (including the centralised sub-editing and features units), Harrow, Ealing, Chesham and Chalfont St Peter, including reporters, chief reporters, news editors, sports editors, chief photographer, photographers, sub-editors, deputy head of features unit, chief features writer, commercial feature writer, writer/sub editors”. The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 8 August 2005. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 12 August 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 Ms Mary Stacey, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr Bob Hill and Mr Dennis Scard. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

3. By a decision dated 23 August 2005, the Panel accepted the Union’s application and, as no agreement was reached on the bargaining unit, subsequently invited both Parties to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. Prior to the hearing taking place, the Chairman of the Panel, Ms Mary Stacey, recused herself from the Panel and the Chairman of the CAC, Sir Michael Burton, nominated Professor John Purcell to sit in her stead. The hearing was held on 5 October 2005 following which the Panel determined that the appropriate bargaining unit was that as proposed by the Union.

Issues

4. Paragraph 22(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) requires the CAC to issue a declaration that a union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers constituting the bargaining unit if it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the applicant union, unless any of the three qualifying conditions set out in Paragraph 22(4) are fulfilled. If any of these conditions are met, or the CAC is not satisfied that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the applicant union, the CAC must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for a secret ballot to be held. The qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) are as follows:

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

ii) that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) 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 union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

Union’s submissions

5. Following the Panel’s decision as to the appropriate bargaining unit, the Union was

asked whether or not it wished to submit that it should be granted recognition without a ballot.

6. In a letter dated 25 October 2005 the Union reminded the Panel that in its application it had stated that 35 of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. In its response to the application the Employer, whilst it confirmed that there were 57 workers in the bargaining unit rather than the 56 assumed by the Union, did not dispute the density of union membership, which at that time stood at 61.4%. The Union submitted that membership within the bargaining unit currently stood at 33 and that, if requested, it was willing to submit evidence of its membership on a confidential basis. Assuming that the number of workers in the bargaining unit was 57, the Union would therefore have 57.89% of the bargaining unit in membership.

7. The Union knew of no grounds on which it could be argued that any of the three conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule applied and accordingly it should be awarded recognition without the need for a ballot.

Employer’s submissions

8. The Union’s letter of 25 October 2005 was forwarded to the Employer and, in a covering letter of the same date, the Employer was asked for any submissions it wished to make on the Union’s claim of majority membership and on the qualifying conditions as specified in paragraph 22(4)

9. The Employer responded on 3 November 2005 by way of an email addressed to the Case Manager. The Employer stated that, whilst it did not doubt that the Union had members in the bargaining unit, it was not aware of the precise numbers. Accordingly, the Employer requested that a check of the Union membership be undertaken, the result of which it would accept.

Membership check and the result thereof

10. To assist in deciding whether to arrange for a secret ballot the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of Union membership in the bargaining unit. The information from the Employer was received by the CAC on 7 November 2005 and from the Union on 8 November 2005. It was explicitly agreed with both Parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other Party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter from the Case Manager to both Parties dated 7 November 2005.

11. The Employer provided a list of 57 workers in the bargaining unit. The Union provided a list of 34 members. The result of the check was that 32 names on the Union's list appeared on the Employers list; a membership level of 56.14%. The result of the Case Manager’s check was circulated to the Panel and the Parties on 17 November 2005.

Considerations

12. The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are union members. 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.

13. The Panel having considered the result of the Case Manager’s report on the membership level within the bargaining unit is satisfied that the Union has a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit in membership. Having arrived at this finding the Panel must now give consideration as to whether any of the qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) are satisfied.

14. Paragraph 22(4)(a) requires the CAC to order a secret ballot even when there is majority Union membership in the bargaining unit where it is satisfied that to do so would be in the interests of good industrial relations. However, no argument has been advanced by the Employer that the interests of good industrial relations would be served by the holding of a secret ballot. Indeed, the Employer made the point during the course of its submissions at the hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit that it recognised the Union in respect of bargaining units elsewhere within the group. On the basis of the information before it the Panel has concluded that industrial relations between the Parties would not be affected if recognition was declared without the need for a secret ballot and it is therefore satisfied that this condition is not met.

15. Paragraph 22(4)(b) requires the CAC to order a ballot when it has received evidence, which it considers to be credible, that a significant number of union members within the bargaining unit do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been received and the Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition is not met.

16. Paragraph 22(4)(c) requires the Panel to order a secret ballot where 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. Membership evidence being evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members and evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members. No such membership evidence has been produced and the Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition is not met.

Declaration

17. The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. Additionally, the Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule are met. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit.

Panel

Professor John Purcell, Chairman

Mr Bob Hill

Mr Dennis Scard

22 November 2005