17 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:

GMB

and

JF Stone Investments Limited t/a

The American Dry Cleaning Company

Introduction

1. GMB (the Union) submitted an application dated 1 February 2006 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by JF Stone Investments Limited t/a The American Dry Cleaning Company (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All factory assistants, Press operators, Bagging operators, Laundry operatives, Quality control, General labourers and Drivers employed at 3 Carlisle Road, Colindale”. The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 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 Ms Mary Stacey (Panel Chairman) and, as Members, Mr Bill J Lockie and Ms Judy McKnight. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah Kendall.

3. The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 16 February 2006. The period was extended until 17 February 2006 in order to allow the Panel further time to examine the evidence before determining how to proceed.

Issues

4. 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 should be accepted.

5. In its application the Union stated that there had been no previous application made in respect of its proposed bargaining unit and that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union reported that a request was made to the Employer on the 10 January 2006 to which the Employer replied on 24 January 2006 stating that it was declining the request. The Union understood there to be 70 workers employed by the Employer and stated that there were 45 workers in the proposed bargaining unit of which 24 were Union members. Additionally, the Union confirmed that thirty-two workers in the proposed bargaining unit had signed a petition in support of its request for recognition and would be available for the purposes of an independent check. It stated that the reasoning behind this particular proposed bargaining unit was that of industrial common sense and that the unit was fully compatible with effective management. Further, the site was managed separately from the Employer’s retail outlets.

6. In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application but went on to state that there were 45 workers in the bargaining unit, which was indeed what the Union had submitted. In a telephone call with the Case Manager to clarify the position the Employer established that there were 45 workers within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit essentially agreeing with the Union’s figures. The Employer however, did not agree with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, stating that the appropriate bargaining unit would build on the Union’s proposed bargaining unit to include workers employed at the retail units, administration staff, supervisors and engineers. The Employer did not dispute the level of membership in the proposed bargaining unit claimed by the Union, nor did it dispute that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition; it wrote ‘n/a’ under the applicable headings. The Employer did not contend that the Union’s application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or validity criteria in the Schedule.

Considerations

7. The Panel has considered carefully all the documentation submitted by the Parties in this case. It reminds the Parties that at the acceptance stage of the statutory process the Schedule requires the Panel to apply the statutory tests to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union; it is not concerned, at this stage, with whether that bargaining unit is appropriate, nor is it concerned with matters relevant to any other stages of the process.

8. The Union stated that out of the 45 workers in its proposed bargaining unit 24 workers were Union members this equates to 53.33% of the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer has disputed neither the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit nor the level of Union membership. The Panel has therefore decided 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.

9. The Panel has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities and on the information before us, a majority of the workers in 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, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the uncontested level of union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. No such evidence has been put forward in this case. In view of the level of union membership the Panel has not been required to consider, and has not considered, evidence from the Union in the form of its petition.

10. In addition the Panel is satisfied, after considering all the documentation submitted by the Parties, that the Union’s application meets the remaining statutory criteria.

Decision

11. For the reasons given above in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Mary Stacey

Mr Bill J Lockie

Ms Judy McKnight

17 February 2006