TUR 1/51/2001

1. The Graphical Paper and Media Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 22 February 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Eastern Counties Newspapers Ltd (the Company) for all workers in pre-press, post-press, in-house print, finishing and maintenance, excluding managers and agency workers, at the location of Thorpe Print Centre, Norwich.

1. In accordance with section 263 of the 1992 Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to determine the case. The Panel consisted of three members: Professor Roger Rideout as Chairman, and Jean Johnson and Simon Petch as Members. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel and parties was Anne Feehally.

1. By a decision dated 10 April 2001, the Panel decided that the Union’s application was admissible. The Parties had previously held a meeting with ACAS at which they were unable to reach agreement on the composition of the bargaining unit. Following the acceptance decision the Parties had a further meeting. At that meeting the parties agreed the bargaining unit except in relation to the Engineers, Print Services and Print Finishing. The Union wanted those three sections to be included in the bargaining unit while the Company believed that they should be excluded. The Panel invited both parties to attend a hearing and to provide the Panel with, and exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit A hearing was held on 4 June 2001 in Cambridge and the names of those who attended are appended to this decision.

Summary of the submission made by the Union

1. The Union stated overall that their proposed bargaining unit, which included the three sections, was appropriate as it was compatible with effective management and avoided leaving small and fragmented groups of workers who would not be represented.

Engineering Department

5. The Union wished to include the engineers in the bargaining unit. The Union accepted that the engineers had different terms and conditions from the other workers, including being paid a salary which covered being on call, rather than being hourly paid and, when earned, receiving overtime payments. It was also accepted that the engineers had different skills which required specific training. But the Union did not consider that any of these points would be a barrier to the Union being able to negotiate on behalf of the engineers, as well as the other workers in the bargaining unit.

6. The Union acknowledged that a few of the engineers were members of another union, the AEEU. The Union informed the hearing that it had made an agreement with the AEEU as to how the GPMU would represent AEEU members, so that would not be a barrier to negotiating effectively on behalf of the engineers. The Union also provided information that nine out of the 11 engineers had signed the Union’s petition in support of recognition.

Print Services

7. The Union stated that Print Services should be included in the bargaining unit as it was in the same location as the rest of the bargaining unit, the workers were employees of the Company and the section was an integral part of Eastern Counties Newspapers Limited. The Union accepted that those workers had a different appraisal system but did not consider that to be a reason why they should be excluded from the bargaining unit. The Union also accepted that that section had to compete with external companies for printing work but considered that to be in line with the many other companies which recognise the Union to negotiate on behalf of their workers.

Print Finishing

8. The Union accepted that the Company had no employees working in that section and that it was staffed by agency workers only. The Union wished to have this section included in the bargaining unit, because it was integral to the work of the Company and might have workers in the future. The Union was concerned that any future workers would find themselves isolated outside the bargaining unit, thus causing fragmentation.

Summary of the Submission made by the Company

9. The Company stated that Thorpe Print Centre was a purpose-built state of the art print centre producing a wide range of newspapers and magazines, including many from within Eastern Counties Newspapers Group and a considerable number from outside.

10. The Company stated that it did not consider that the three sections should be included in the bargaining unit and that including them would not be compatible with effective management.

Engineering Department

11. The Company stated that the engineers worked to a completely different contractual structure in terms of hours, salary (as opposed to payment by time) and payscale. It was part of their contracts to provide continuous maintenance cover; there was no payment for extra hours unless there were exceptional circumstances. The Company maintained that the engineers had a different relationship with the Company, seeing themselves as staff rather than ‘blue collar’ workers. The engineers needed formal technical qualifications, including attendance at college or university. This was not so for the printworkers. Engineers and other workers were not interchangeable.

12. The Company was concerned that if the Union bargained on behalf of the engineers, as part of the bigger bargaining unit, the differences between the engineers and the other workers would lead to the engineers becoming disaffected if their interests received insufficient attention. The Company stated some engineers were members of the AEEU and it was concerned about how such engineers would be represented by the GPMU. The Company considered this would lead to negotiating indirectly, rather than face to face, with those who represented the AEEU members. The Company commented that it had not seen the Union’s petition to verify that nine engineers had signed it. It also queried the accuracy of the information presented to the engineers prior to their signing the petition.

13. The Company stated that it believed including the engineers in the bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management. It did recognise that by excluding the Engineers the GPMU, or another union, could seek recognition for a small bargaining unit but stated, in line with the legislation, that that factor was only relevant in so far as it did not conflict with the need for the bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management.

Print Services

14. The Company stated that Print Services was an entirely separate business with a separate profit and loss account. Print Services paid a fixed amount per annum to the newspaper printing industry for the use of the space and the cost of overheads at the Thorpe site. The business had a separate management structure from the rest of the Print Centre, though it did still report to Mr. Dodds, the Managing Director - Printing. Print Services used different machinery to the rest of the Centre and the workers had different terms and conditions. The Company considered the viability of that business depended on it being competitive with other jobbing and stationery printers and so the terms and conditions of the workers had to be competitive with those of such printers and not influenced by the terms applicable in the newspaper printing business.

Print Finishing

15. The Company stated that it had no employees in print finishing, all work being done by agency workers, therefore it did not believe that that section could be included in the bargaining unit, under paragraph 1 of the Schedule. That paragraph stated that the Union needed to seek “...recognition to be entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group, or groups of workers in order to make a request in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.” The Company contended that as Print Finishing had no workers, recognition was not being sought for a “group or groups of workers” and so that section could not be included in the bargaining unit. The Company considered that if at a future time the section did have workers who wished to be represented they could seek this by either as a separate bargaining unit or by applying for the existing bargaining unit to be amended.

16. The Company stated that it had a general policy of encouraging movement between the sections but that there was no movement between the newspaper printers and print service staff.

Considerations

17. Paragraph 19(3)(a) and (b) of the Schedule requires the Panel to decide the appropriate bargaining unit and in making that decision to take into account the need for the bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19(4) of the Schedule, in so far as they do not conflict with that need. These are: the views of the employer and of the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the proposed bargaining unit and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers.

18. The decision has been taken after full and detailed consideration of the views of both parties as expressed in their written submissions, and amplified at the hearing, and in the light of the evidence placed before us. The decision is also taken in the light of the Panel’s own industrial relations experience.

19. The Panel does not accept that it cannot include within the bargaining unit a section in which there are currently has no employees. The Schedule excludes entire bargaining units made up of ‘non-workers’ but, in the Panel’s view, the Schedule does allow the determination of a bargaining unit that includes a section in which, at a particular point in time, there happens to be no employees.

20. The Panel does not consider that including workers who have different terms and conditions in the same bargaining unit is not compatible with effective management. Nor does the Panel accept that a union cannot negotiate effectively on behalf of workers who are members of another union and would not discourage the recognition of a single union by an employer in the case of a multi-union bargaining unit.

21. The Panel does not consider that sufficient evidence has been submitted to show that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is not compatible with effective management. This unit also takes into account the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units. The Panel is concerned that excluding the three sections, as suggested by the Company, would cause isolation and possible fragmentation.

22. The bargaining unit as proposed by the Union covers workers all working for the same employer, at the same site and all in sections reporting to the Mr. Dodds, Managing Director - Printing.

The Panel’s Decision

23. The Panel has decided that the appropriate bargaining unit is all workers, employed by Eastern Counties Newspapers Limited, on the activities currently based at Thorpe Print Centre, excluding managers, team leaders, administration staff, and drivers and distribution.

Panel Chair Professor Roger Rideout

Members Jean Johnson

Simon Petch

11 June 2001

Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing

Representing the Union

Mr C Harding

Mr P Willard

Ms A Przystupa

Representing the Company

Mr P Dodds

Mr C Adams

Mr O Warnock