TUR 1 / 51 / 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:

 

 

Graphical Media and Paper Union

 

and

 

Eastern Counties Newspapers  Ltd

 

 

Introduction

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

Issues

 

3.                  The Panel is required by the Act to determine whether the Union=s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 4 to 8, is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and is admissible under the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act. The principal area of potential concern in this case is whether the Union=s application has satisfied the terms of paragraph 36 (1) (b)of Schedule A1.

 

4.                  In response to the Union=s application, the Company questioned whether the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition.    The Company offered no evidence to counter the Union=s position on the remaining tests.    The Panel has considered all the documentation relating to the remaining tests and is satisfied that the Union=s application meets all the other statutory criteria.

 

5.                  At the request of the Panel, the Case Manager was asked to arrange a hearing for 6 April 2001 and asked the Parties to prepare written submissions, together with supporting documentation, to be delivered to the CAC prior to the hearing.    Each party=s submissions were then supplied to the other party by the CAC in advance of the hearing.    A hearing was held on 6 April, and the names of those who attended are appended to this decision.

 

 

Paragraph 36 (1) (a)

 

6.                  Paragraph 36 (1) (a) of the Schedule provides that the CAC must be satisfied that at least 10% of the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union.  In its application form, the Union stated that it had 49 members out of a proposed bargaining unit of approximately 90 workers, which is in excess of 10%. The Company stated that the number of workers in the bargaining unit was 74, but did not dispute the Union=s estimate of membership.    The Company therefore accepted that this test was met.

 

Paragraph 36 (1 ) (b)

 

7.                  Paragraph 36 (1) (b) of the Schedule provides that the CAC must be satisfied that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining. In its application form, the Union stated that a petition had been signed by the workers, and was available, should the CAC require it.   The petition was headed AWe the undersigned workers who are employed by Eastern Counties Newspaper Group at the Thorpe Print Centre, St Andrews Business Park, Thorpe, Norwich, Norfolk, ask that the GPMU be recognised as being entitled to conduct collective bargaining on our behalf.@   At the hearing, the Company requested that a comparison be made of the names on the petition with a list of names of the workers in the bargaining unit.   After establishing that the Union had no objection to the comparison being made, the Panel Chairman asked CAC staff present to carry out the comparison.   The lists were not shown to the other party or to the Panel.   The results showed that 58 of those signing the petition worked in the bargaining unit (78.4% of the workers in the bargaining unit).

 

8.                  The Union explained that, as part of their recognition campaign, they had organised a meeting for those working for the Company at the Thorpe Print Centre on Sunday 26 November 2000.    Some 45 - 50 had attended, and there was overwhelming support for recognition of the Union.    The petition had been left on the table for those present to sign.    The Union made the point that no pressure had been put on workers to sign - the petition had not been circulated during the meeting so individuals could not tell who else had signed.   A number of members had brought copies into the workplace so that colleagues could also sign it.   In addition, some members had collected signatures outside the workplace as shifts changed.   While two former workers of the Company (one retired, one who now worked elsewhere) had on three occasions been among those who collected signatures, again no pressure had been put on any workers to sign.    The Union acknowledged that there had been some incorrect statements about the impact of recognition in their leaflets during the campaign but noted that these had been corrected, and the explanation sent to workers in the Company.

 

9.                  The Company did not dispute the Union=s membership figures, but argued that the membership evidence and petition did not support the conclusion that the majority would want recognition because in their view, workers joined the Union for other reasons and there was pressure to sign the petition.    Their understanding was that the 26 November meeting had been attended by only some 30 people.    In the Company=s view, the presence of former workers outside the workplace had made it difficult for workers to avoid signing the petition.    In particular, there were 31 recent recruits and the Company had discussed its stance on unions individually with all of them as part of their induction process.    The Company estimated that some 20 of these workers had joined the Union in the belief that membership of the GMPU would enable them to get other jobs in the industry once they left the Company.    In addition, the Company had questioned the new workers on the petition and considered that around 20 of them had little knowledge of what recognition involved.    Also, very few workers had raised the issue of recognition with the Company.

 

10.              The Company referred to discussions with the Union under the auspices of ACAS in an attempt to reach a voluntary agreement.     The Company had proposed a secret ballot on recognition in which different sections would use colour-coded ballot papers.    The Company would have been prepared to grant recognition to any section where a majority of the workers voted in favour.    The Union had refused to take part in such a ballot.    In the Company=s view, this indicated a lack of confidence on the Union=s part that there was majority support for recognition.    The Union stated that, given the small size of some sections, such a ballot would hardly be secret.

 

 

Considerations

 

11.              The Panel notes that the Company do not dispute that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit belong to the Union.

 

12.              The Panel also notes that, following a check by CAC staff, it is clear that the great majority of the workers in the bargaining unit have signed a petition that clearly seeks recognition of the Union.

 

13.              The Panel notes the points made by the Company, and the Union, on the circumstances in which the petition was prepared, and on the discussions with ACAS.  In the view of the Panel, the Union=s reluctance to agree to a colour-coded ballot was not surprising given the small numbers in some of the sections.

 

14.              The Panel is satisfied that on the evidence provided that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

 

Decision

 

15.              For the reasons given above, the Panel decides that the requirements of paragraph 36  (1) (a) and 36 (1) (b) of Schedule A1 are satisfied. Overall having examined the Union=s application and the Company=s response most carefully, the Panel also decides that the other tests of admissibility in paragraphs 33 - 42 are satisfied, as are the validity tests in paragraphs 4- 8 and the test for making an application in paragraphs 11 to 12.  The Union=s application is therefore valid and admissible and is accepted by the CAC.

 

 

Panel Chair     Professor Roger Rideout

 

Members        Jean Johnson

Simon Petch                                                                Date 10 April 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