Case Number: TUR1/496/2006

13 March 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:

 

General, Municipal and Boilermakers (GMB)

 

and

 

Vinci Park Services UK Limited

           

 

 

Introduction

 

1.      GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 9 February 2006 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Vinci Park Services UK Limited (the Employer).  The Union’s proposed bargaining unit was described as ‘All Staff employed at 12a High Street South, Dunstable, Bedfordshire, LU6 3HA’.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 February 2006.  The Employer submitted its response to the application on 17 February 2006; the response 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 consider the case.  The Panel consisted of Professor Paul Davies (Deputy Chairman) and as Members, Mr Neil Wallace and Ms Lesley Mercer.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah Kendall.

 

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; and therefore should be accepted.

 

4.      The Union, in its application, stated that the request letter was issued to the Employer on 23 January 2006.  It believed that there were 18 workers in the proposed unit bargaining of which 9 were Union members.  The Union stated that it had a current certificate of independence and that there were no existing agreements which covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

 

5.      In its response, dated 17 February 2006, to the Union’s application the Employer reported that it had received the Union’s request letter and responded by stating that the Employer could not recognise the Union.  The Employer stated that it employed 1157 workers; 18 of those were employed within the proposed bargaining unit at the South Bedfordshire site.

 

6.      The Employer did not agree that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate unit stating that it was not aware of any union members at the South Bedfordshire site and that no membership deductions were made by its payroll.

 

Membership and petition check

 

7.      To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria, the Panel proposed that the Case Manager should undertake checks of the level of union membership within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the number of workers within that unit who had signed the Union’s petition.  The criteria are, firstly, under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union and, secondly, under paragraph 36(1)(b), whether a majority of workers within that unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

 

8.      The Parties agreed that the Employer would supply, to the Case Manager, a list of the names of the 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.  The Union was to also provide a copy of the petition.  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 letters dated 28 February 2006 and sent to both Parties.  The information requested was received from both Parties on 1 March 2006.

 

9.      The Employer provided a list containing the names, addresses and job titles of 16 workers.  The Union provided a copy of a list containing the names and addresses of 9 members.  The Union, however, was unable to supply the petition within the timescale set down by the Panel because the petition could not be located.

 

10.  The result of the membership check was that there were 18 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit of whom 9 were members of GMB; a membership level of 50.00%.

 

11.  A report of the result of the check of the level of union membership was circulated to the Panel and the Parties on 3 March 2006, and both Parties were invited to comment on the contents of the Case Manager’s report.

 

Views of the Union

 

12.  The Union, in a telephone conversation with the Case Manager on 7 March 2006, stated that it read the content of the report and did not feel it necessary to comment on its content.

 

Views of the Employer

 

13.  The Employer, in a letter dated 7 March 2006, stated that it was concerned that the Union did not have a “natural majority” in the work force.  The Employer stated that the Union was working under a misapprehension as to the nature of terms and conditions at the workplace.  It stated that the contract was with the South Bedfordshire Council, in which the salaries and working hours of the employees were not under its ability to be re-negotiated otherwise than under the mechanism provided by the contract.  All employees received 4 weeks holiday per annum plus 8 days for public holidays which is the same for each of its contracts in the UK.

 

Considerations

 

14.  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.

 

15.  The Panel has fully considered the evidence and submissions from both Parties in reaching its decision on whether to accept the Union’s application.  The Panel considers that on the evidence made available to it by both Parties, the Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 8; the request dated 23 January 2006 was received by the Employer, the Union has a Certificate of Independence, the Employer employed at least 21 workers on the date it received the request, the request was in writing, the request identified the Union, the request identified the proposed bargaining unit and the request made clear that it was made under Schedule A1.  None of these matters was disputed by the Employer.

 

16.  The Panel has also to decide whether the Union’s application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule.  The Union’s application and the Employer’s response along with all the other evidence submitted by the Parties satisfies the Panel that the Union’s application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42. Again, the Employer did not argue otherwise.

 

17.  The outstanding question which the Panel must address is whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraph 36 of the Schedule, namely, whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining (paragraph 36(1)(b)).

 

18.  The Panel is satisfied that the Case Manager’s membership check described in paragraphs 7 to 11 above, which showed that 50.00% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union, was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the Parties.  Further, the Employer has not disputed this figure and the Panel has not been made aware of any evidence that would suggest other than that the figure is accurate.  The Panel is satisfied that the level of union membership in the bargaining unit does constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule. 

 

19.  In considering the test set out in paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule the Panel again considered all of the evidence submitted by both Parties.  The Union did not provide any further evidence to meet this test and relied on the list it had provided of union members in the proposed bargaining unit.  As shown in paragraph 19 of this decision, 50% of the workers in proposed bargaining unit are union members.  At this stage the Panel must decide whether the majority of the workers would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.  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 addition, it is likely that one or more of the non-union workers in the proposed bargaining unit would support the Union’s claim for recognition.  The Panel is satisfied, in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, that a majority of workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

 

Decision

 

20.  The application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, was made in accordance with paragraph 11 and is admissible within the terms of paragraph 33 to 42 of Schedule A1.  The application is therefore accepted by the CAC.

 

Panel

Professor Paul Davies

Mr Neil Wallace

Ms Lesley Mercer

 

13 March 2006