Case Number: TUR1/469/2004

                                                                                                            14 September 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:

 

United Road Transport Union

 

and

 

Corby Chilled Distribution Limited

           

 

Introduction

 

1.      The United Road Transport Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 25 July 2005 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Corby Chilled Distribution Limited (the Employer).  The Union’s proposed bargaining unit was described as ‘All LGV drivers and warehouse operatives employed at the Heywood location’.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 12 August 2005.  The Employer submitted its response to the application on 18 August 2005; the response 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 consider the case.  The Panel consisted of Professor Frank Burchill (Deputy Chairman) and as Members, Mr Paul Gates and Mr Neil Wallace.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah Kendall.

 

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 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; and therefore should be accepted.

 

4.      The Union, in its application, stated that the request letter was issued to the Employer on 1 July 2005.  It believed that there were 81 workers in the proposed unit bargaining of which 47 were Union members.  The Union stated that it had a current certificate of independence and that there were no existing agreements which covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

 

5.      In its response, dated 18 August 2005, to the Union’s application the Employer reported that it had received the Union’s request letter and responded by stating that the Employer was already having voluntary talks with another Union.  The Employer stated that it employed 97 workers including management at the Heywood site; 78 of those were employed within the proposed bargaining unit either as warehouse staff or as drivers.  The Union had attached a list of Union members to its application which was also forwarded to the Employer.  The Employer stated that at least five drivers named on the Union’s list of members no longer worked for the Employer and further queried whether those listed were fully paid up members and requested that a membership check was carried out.  The Employer reported that it had been suggested that a number of Union members did not want recognition for collective bargaining purposes and urged that a ballot was held so that the level of support could be established. 

 

6.      The Employer did not agree that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate unit stating that the appropriate bargaining unit should also include shunters and the maintenance person.  The Employer declared that there was no existing agreement covering any of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

 

Membership and petition check

 

7.      To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria, the Panel proposed that the Case Manager should undertake checks of the level of union membership within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the number of workers within that unit who had signed the Union’s pledge sheets.  The criteria are, firstly, under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union and, secondly, under paragraph 36(1)(b), whether a majority of workers within that unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

 

8.      The Parties agreed that the Employer would supply, to the Case Manager, a list of the names of the workers within the proposed 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.  The Union was also asked to provide evidence that its Union members were fully paid up in accordance with the Union’s Rulebook.  It was explicitly agreed with the Parties that, to preserve confidentiality, neither list would be copied to the other Party.  Additionally, the Parties agreed that the Union would provide confidentially copies of the pledge sheets resulting from a test carried out by the Union to identify support for collective bargaining in the proposed bargaining unit.  This allowed a check to be undertaken by the Case Manager of the number of workers within that unit who had signed the pledge sheets.  The agreed arrangements were confirmed in letters dated 24 August 2005 and sent to both Parties.  The information requested was received from both Parties on 26 August 2005. 

 

9.      The Employer provided a list containing the names, addresses and job titles of 82 workers.  The Union provided a copy of a list containing the names and addresses of 43 members stating that they were full paying members in accordance with the Union’s rules.

 

10.  The result of the membership check was that there were 82 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit  of whom 40 were members of URTU; a membership level of 48.78%.  The check of the pledge sheets showed that 63 of the 82 workers had demonstrated support by signing pledge sheets (76.83%).  Of those 63 signatories, 34 (53.97%) were Union members and 29 (46.03%) were non-members.

 

11.  The pledge sheets carried the proposition “we the undersigned employees of Corby Chilled at the Heywood site wish that the United Road Transport Works Union be reconised by our employer to represent us and bargain for us at Heywood.  Should anyone be interested please sign and date”.  The pledge sheet clearly asked for a name, signature and date.  There then followed a footnote “Thanks for your co-operation”.  The pledges were signed between 29 April and 6 May 2005.

 

12.  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 1 September 2005, and both Parties were invited to comment on the contents of the Case Manager’s report.

 

Views of the Union

 

13.   In a telephone conversation with the Case Manager on 6 September 2005 the Union confirmed that it was content with the findings of the membership and support check report and did not wish to comment further. 

 

Views of the Employer

 

14.  The Employer in an email dated 6 September 2005 stated that it did not have any comment to make on the Case Manager’s membership and support check.

 

Considerations

 

15.  The Panel has fully considered the evidence and submissions from both Parties in reaching its decision on whether to accept the Union’s application.  The Panel considers that on the evidence made available to it by both Parties, the Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 8; the request dated 1 July 2005 was received by the Employer, the Union has a Certificate of Independence, the Employer employed at least 21 workers on the date it received the request, the request was in writing, the request identified the Union, the request identified the proposed bargaining unit and the request made clear that it was made under Schedule A1.

 

16.  The application was made in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Schedule, the Employer rejected the Union’s request as it was in the process of voluntary discussions with another Union for the same group of workers.

 

17.  The Panel has also to decide whether the Union’s application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule. The Union’s application and the Employer’s response along with all the other evidence submitted by the Parties satisfies the Panel that the Union’s application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42.

 

18.  The outstanding question which the Panel must address is whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraph 36 of the Schedule, namely, whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining (paragraph 36(1)(b)).

 

19.  The Panel is satisfied that the Case Manager’s membership check described in paragraphs 7 to 12 above, which showed that 48.78% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union, was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the Parties. Further, the Employer has not disputed this figure and the Panel has not been made aware of any evidence that would suggest other than that the figure is accurate.  The Panel is satisfied that the level of union 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) of the Schedule.  

20.  In considering the test set out in paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule the Panel considered all of the evidence submitted by both Parties, before and after the Case Manager’s check of the Union’s pledge sheets.  These showed that against the list of 82 workers provided by the Employer that 63 of the pledge sheet signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 76.83%.  At this stage the Panel must decide whether the majority of the workers would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. Given the level of support demonstrated by the pledge sheets, where the majority of the signatories were non union members (46.03%), the total percentage of the workers supporting Union recognition is 94.81%. The Panel concludes it is more likely than not that the majority of the workers would favour recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining and is satisfied, in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, that a  majority of workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.  

 

Decision

 

21.  The Panel's decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

 

 

Panel

Professor Frank Burchill

Mr Paul Gates

Mr Neil Wallace

 

14 September 2005