Case Number: TUR1/47/(2001)

 

 

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:

 

ISTC

 

and

 

Bone Steel Ltd

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         ISTC (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 8 February 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Bone Steel Ltd (the Company) for weekly paid shopfloor employees excluding those holding the position of supervisor and above and clerical staff.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 12 February 2001.  The Company submitted a response to the CAC on 16 February 2001 which was copied to the Union.

 

2.         In accordance with section 263 of the 1992 Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Ms Mary Stacey, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr E Barry and Lord Lea OBE.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Simon Gouldstone.

 

The Panel’s Decision

 

3.         The Panel is required by the Act to determine whether the Union’s application to the CAC should be accepted after applying the admissibility tests.  In its response to the Union’s application, the Company submitted that the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, as stated by the Union, was incorrect and that it comprised 165 workers not 150.  It also considered that the level of Union membership claimed by the Trade Union of 78 members of the bargaining unit was unsubstantiated and high, to the best of its knowledge.  The Company did not contest any other elements in the Union’s application relating to the admissibility tests. 


4.         In order to assist the resolution of the issues described in the previous paragraph, the Panel proposed a check to be undertaken by the Case Manager of the level of Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit.  Both parties agreed that the Company 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 to enable a comparison to be undertaken.  It was explicitly agreed with the parties that, to preserve confidentiality, neither list would be copied to the other party.  The agreed arrangements were confirmed in a letters dated 2 March 2001 from the Case Manager to both parties.  The information from the Company was received by the Case Manager on 5 March 2001 and from the Union on 7 March 2001.  The results of the check of the membership level were circulated to the Panel and the parties on 9 March 2001.  The Panel is satisfied that the membership check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.  To allow sufficient time for the exercise to be completed, the Panel extended the period within which it had to decide whether the Union’s application should be accepted to 16 March 2001.

 

5.         In its application, the Union estimated the number of workers in its proposed bargaining unit as 150; the Company, in its response, gave the figure as 165.  The information supplied by the Company to the Case Manager indicated that the figure, at the time the information was provided, was 198.  The Case Manager raised the discrepancy between the number of workers in the Company’s list and the number submitted on the Company’s response form and it was explained that an unspecified number of workers outside the proposed bargaining unit had been included in the list and that some of the workers had left the Company’s employment.  The Panel is not, at this stage, able to make a finding as to the exact size of the bargaining unit other than to note that it is something less than 198.  The Union provided a computerised list of members, certified by a full time officer, and the Panel is satisfied that that information constituted adequate confirmation that the employees named actually were members.  The information was cross-checked and showed that there were 89 members in the list provided by the Company.  The proportion of Union members in the Company’s list is 44%.  The proportion of Union membership the proposed bargaining unit is at least 44%.

 

6.         The Panel has considered all the evidence relating to the statutory admissibility tests and is satisfied that the Union’s application meets all the criteria laid down in the Schedule. The Panel examined, in particular, whether the application fulfilled the two tests stipulated in paragraph 36 of the Schedule and we have concluded that the information summarised in the previous paragraph is sufficient for us to decided that at least 10% of those employed in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union.  The Panel has also considered the evidence relating to the question of whether 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.  The Union relied on the operative level of Union membership as its principal evidence on that point and, in view of the results of the membership check described in the previous paragraph, the Panel is satisfied that 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.  Using its industrial relations experience, knowledge and expertise, the Panel considers that where a particular union has a density of membership of at least 44% it is likely that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of that union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

 

7.         For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

 

 

 

Mary Stacey

Eamonn Barry

David Lea

 

9 March 2001