Case Number: TUR1/473(2005)
29 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:
Amicus
and
Inprint Extended Text Labels
Ltd
Introduction
1. Amicus
(the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 5 September 2005 that it should be
recognised for collective bargaining by Inprint Extended Text Labels Ltd
(the Employer)
in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “(a)ll Permanent Production staff,
excluding Administration, below Supervisory level at Inprint Extended Labels
Ltd (sic) in Ashford” Kent. The CAC gave
both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 6 September 2005.
The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 13 September 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 Ged
Fisher and Ms Judy McKnight. The Case
Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.
Issues
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 (the Schedule); and therefore is to be accepted.
4. In
its application the Union stated that there were 48
workers in its proposed bargaining unit and that 33 of these workers were Union
members. The Union
explained that it had selected this particular bargaining unit because it reflected
the range of union membership within the company.
5. In its response to the Union’s
application, the Employer stated that it disagreed with the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit on the grounds that it included 3 workers (and 1
vacant post) whose manager was based at a different site and who was part of a
separate company within the Inprint Group.
This manager was responsible for recruiting new workers for this area,
provided all the work loading, approved leave, conducted appraisals and was
responsible for absence notifications.
It had, it explained, already put to the Union in
April 2005, in the presence of Acas, an alternative proposal in that it would
agree a bargaining unit consisting of “permanent production staff including
administration”. This bargaining unit would
exclude the 4 employees referred to above but the Employer would recognise
these posts in a separate bargaining unit.
It argued that, to maintain management integrity amongst the workers,
the bargaining unit should therefore include only production and production
related workers (customer support, technical, studio, QA and warehouse) below
supervisor level managed by the Ashford based management. The Employer had understood that this arrangement
had been agreed between the Parties but that the Union
was now proposing a bargaining unit outside the terms of that agreement. This alternative bargaining unit, which would
include employees engaged in administrative posts, amounted to 47 workers as at
31 August 2005. When asked if it agreed with the figure given
by the Union as to the number of workers in the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that there were 39 workers rather
than the 48 as stated by the Union.
6. The Employer, when asked whether it
disagreed with the Union’s estimate of its membership in the proposed
bargaining unit responded that, whilst it did not know the actual membership of
the Union, it was unlikely that the number was correct given that it had not
changed on any of the Union’s 3 previous applications to the CAC, (which they
had subsequently withdrawn before the acceptance decision,) despite the
turnover in workers within the proposed bargaining unit during this
period. Finally, the Employer did not
comment on the question of whether or not it considered that the majority of
the workers in the proposed bargaining unit supported recognition of the Union.
7. In a letter to the CAC dated 16 September 2005 the Union
expressed concerns about the contents of the Employer’s response to the
application. The Union
stated that, contrary to the Employer’s claim, it did not agree to the
alternative bargaining unit put forward during the Parties’ meeting with
Acas. The Union
had made it clear that it would have been prepared to agree a bargaining unit that
included the administration staff but only on the proviso that the 4 workers
were also included. However, discussions
did not progress when the Employer signalled that it was not prepared to accept
the inclusion into the bargaining unit of the 4 workers.
8. Whilst the Panel has noted the Parties’
contradictory views as to whether agreement had been reached on the bargaining
unit, its task at this stage of the statutory process is to decide the
admissibility tests in relation to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union
in its application. The Panel is not
called upon to determine the appropriate bargaining unit as part of this
decision. The question of the
appropriate bargaining unit is for later determination, if necessary.
Considerations
9. In
deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the
admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this
decision are satisfied.
10. The
Employer has confirmed, in its response to the CAC dated 13 September 2005, that it received the Union’s
request for recognition on 10 June
2005. It responded to the
request the same day, putting forward an alternative bargaining unit to which
the Union did not agree. The Panel is satisfied that the Union
made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of
the Schedule. The Panel is also
satisfied that the application was made in accordance with paragraph 12 in that
the Employer’s response to the request satisfied the provisions of paragraph
10(2) and no agreement had been made before the end of the second period as
defined in paragraph 10(7). Furthermore,
on the evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not
rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and
paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The
remaining questions before the Panel are whether 10% of the workers in the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union, and
whether the majority of the workers in the Union’s
proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union
for collective bargaining.
Paragraph
36(1)(a)
11. In its application the Union
stated that there were 33 union members in its proposed bargaining unit of 48
workers. However, in its response to the
application the Employer said that this was incorrect and that the actual
number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining
unit was 39. In addition, the Employer
disputed the accuracy of the Union’s estimate of its membership on the ground
that it had not changed since the Union had lodged its first application for
recognition, which was subsequently withdrawn before acceptance was determined
in June 2005, during a period which had seen changes to the number of workers
employed in the proposed bargaining unit.
However, the Employer has not quantified these changes and there is no
evidence before us which challenges the accuracy of the Union’s membership
figures. On the Union’s figures it has
33 members out of 39 workers in the proposed bargaining unit giving a
membership density of 84.62%. The Panel
is therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the level of Union
membership in the bargaining unit constitutes at least 10% of the workers in
the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the
Schedule.
Paragraph
36(1)(b)
12. Paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule
requires the CAC to decide 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. Even if we accept that there may be minor
inaccuracies in the Union’s figures on account of the effluxion of time as
suggested by the Employer, the Panel is satisfied that on the basis of the
information before us, Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit
stands at considerably more than 50% The
Panel is of the view that, on the balance of probabilities, a worker who has
joined a union would likely to be in favour of that union negotiating with the
employer on matters related to pay, hours and holidays, and so the level of Union
membership provides, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a persuasive
indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. On this basis the Panel believes that it is
reasonable, taking into account the level of Union membership within the
proposed bargaining unit, for it to conclude that a majority of the workers in
the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. The Panel considers the fact that the
Employer, in its response to the application, did not contest the Union’s claim
that a majority of the workers would be likely to support recognition of the
Union, as further confirmation that this is a justifiable conclusion for the
Panel to reach. We do not need to put the Parties to the time and trouble of
supplying us with the relevant information for a membership check at this stage
of the case. Accordingly, the Panel is therefore satisfied that the majority of
workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition
of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.
Decision
13. For
the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is
accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Ms Mary Stacey
Mr Ged Fisher
Ms Judy McKnight
29 September
2005