Case Number TUR 1/48/(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

Corby Trades and Labour Club

Introduction

1. The ISTC (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 8 February 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Corby Trades and Labour Club (the Employer). The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 9 February 2001. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 19 February 2001.

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 Gillian Morris, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr Peter Humphrey and Ms. Virginia Branney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Mr. Amit Sen.

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 5-8; 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 is therefore to be accepted. In response to the Union=s application, the Employer offered no evidence to counter the Union=s position on any of the tests. Initially the Employer had suggested that the existence of an agreement with the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations (CORCA) could render the Union=s application inadmissible under paragraph 35 of the Schedule. However, the Panel understands that CORCA is an employer=s body that sets guidelines with regard to pay and terms and conditions for non-profit-making clubs. The Panel has considered all the documentation relating to the remaining tests and is satisfied that the Union=s application meets all the statutory criteria.

4. In relation to the paragraph 36 tests, the Union has claimed that its members number 19 out of 22 workers in the bargaining unit. The Employer has not disputed either of these numbers. On this basis the level of Union membership in the bargaining unit would be 86%. As regards the majority likely to support union recognition test, the Employer has not challenged the Union on this aspect of its application either.

Decision

5. In view of the fact that the Employer has not disputed the 10% membership, the Panel has accepted the Union=s claim of 10% membership within the bargaining unit.

6. In order to properly discharge our statutory responsibility on the second point, the Panel had to consider the information submitted by the parties and make a decision. According to the Union, the total number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit is 22 and the Employer confirms this. The Union has said that it has 19 members and this has not been disputed by the Employer. We have therefore concluded on the basis of the Panel=s industrial relations experience that on the balance of probabilities, 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.

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

Panel Chair Prof. Gillian Morris

Members Ms. Virginia Branney

Mr. Peter Humphrey

28 February 2001