28 February 2006

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:

National Union of Journalists

(NUJ)

and

Midland Weekly Media

Introduction

1. NUJ (the Union) submitted an application dated 25 January 2006 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Midland Weekly Media (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Reporters, Sub Editors, Photographers, Feature Writers and News and Sports desk staff employed to work on the Solihull News and Solihull Times in the Solihull offices.” The application was received by the CAC on 1 February 2006. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 7 February 2006 which was then 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 Professor Linda Dickens, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr David Bower and Ms Bronwyn McKenna. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.

Issues

3. The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore to be accepted.

Views of the Union

4. In its application, the Union stated that there were 11 workers employed in the proposed bargaining unit, all of whom were members of the Union. The Union confirmed that all the members in the proposed bargaining unit supported recognition for collective bargaining and that it would provide for the CAC a list of its members if so required. Finally the Union explained that the reason why it had selected these workers was because they were journalists who worked in the same office, whom reported to the same editor on newspapers which stood alone from the rest of the company.

Views of the Employer

5. In response to the Union’s application, the Employer disagreed that there were 11 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and stated that there were 13 workers including the Series Editor, an Editorial Assistant and a copytaker. The Employer stated that it did not have information to enable it to agree or disagree with the Union’s estimate of union membership in the proposed bargaining unit or on the matter of whether a majority of the workers within that unit were likely to support recognition. Finally the Employer confirmed that it did not agree with the proposed bargaining unit.

Membership Check

6. To assist in the determination of the admissibility criteria specified by Paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, the Panel requested that an independent check of the Union’s membership in the proposed bargaining unit should be conducted by the Case Manager. The Union provided a list of members in the proposed bargaining unit and the Employer provided a list of workers in the proposed bargaining unit on 20 February 2006. It was agreed that to preserve confidentiality the information provided by the Parties would not be copied to any other Party. The arrangements for the membership check were confirmed in a letter to both Parties on 15 February 2006.

7. The Case Manager carried out a comparison of the lists. The Employer provided a list of 13 individual workers and the Union provided a list of 10 union members. The Case Manager carried out a comparison of the lists and the results of the membership check were produced as a numerical report. The membership check established that 10 workers in the proposed bargaining unit were union members, resulting in a membership level of 77%.

8. The results of the membership check were produced as a numerical report and circulated to the Parties for their comments on 22 February 2006. On 24 February 2006 both the Employer and the Union confirmed to the Case Manager that it had no comment about the membership check.

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. The Panel considered all the evidence submitted by the Employer and the Union in reaching its decision. The Panel was satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule as the Union provided a copy of the request made to the Employer on the 27 January 2005 to recognise it for collective bargaining in respect of the proposed bargaining unit described in paragraph 1 of this decision. The request is made in writing and identified the Union, the proposed bargaining unit and stated that the request was made under the Schedule. The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 and is in accordance with paragraph 12 (2) of the Schedule.

10. The remaining issue for the Panel to address then is whether the admissibility criteria of paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met. In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Schedule the Panel must determine whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and whether a majority of the workers constituting the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

11. The Panel finds that in considering the evidence submitted by the Parties and the results of the membership check, the criteria of paragraph 36(1)(a) is satisfied as the figures established that 77% of the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the 10% test is met.

12. According to paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, the Panel must assess whether a majority of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union. The Panel is satisfied that this admissibility criterion has been met for the following reasons:

13. The Panel accepts that membership of a union, where there is no evidence to the contrary, is indicative of likely support for collective bargaining unit by the union in relation to the member’s employer. The membership check produced by the Case Manager showed that 77% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union. No arguments on this point were made by the Employer.

Decision

14. The Panel is satisfied that the application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, is made in accordance to with paragraph 12 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of schedule A1. The application is therefore accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Professor Linda Dickens (Chairman of the Panel)

Mr David Bower

Ms Bronwyn McKenna

28 February 2006