Case Number: TUR1/54/(2001)

28 November 2001

                                    CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

                    SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

            DECLARATION THAT UNION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED

The Parties:

                                                                BFAWU

                                                                    and

                                                    Seabrook Potato Crisps Ltd

Introduction

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 application consisting of Professor Roy Lewis, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr D Cameron and Mr D Crowe. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Simon Gouldstone.

3. By a decision dated 23 March 2001, the Panel decided that the Union's application should be accepted by the CAC. The Panel issued a second decision on 5 June 2001 that determined the appropriate bargaining unit as all production workers, including hygiene workers, at both the Allerton and Princeville sites, excluding supervisors, managers, office staff, drivers and engineers. That unit differed from the bargaining unit proposed by the Union and the Panel subsequently issued a further decision, dated 11 July 2001, that the application remained valid and that the CAC would proceed with the application.

4. As the Union did not submit that the majority of the workers in the revised bargaining unit were union members, the Panel notified the parties, on 16 July 2001, that a ballot should be held and, after considering representations from the parties, decided, on 3 September 2001, that it should be a workplace ballot. The Panel consequently directed that Electoral Reform Services should be appointed as the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) to conduct a ballot of workers in the bargaining unit on the question of whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

5. The QIP was appointed on 21 September 2001 and the date by which the ballot was to be completed was 23 November 2001.

6. The QIP reported to the CAC on 23 November 2001 that, of the 239 workers in the bargaining unit, 218 (91.2%) had voted in the ballot; there were no invalid ballot papers. 80 workers (36.7% of those voting) voted to support the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Company and 138 (63.3% of those voting) voted to reject the proposal. The proportion of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 33.5%.

Declaration

7. In accordance with paragraph 29(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act, the CAC informed both parties, on 23 November 2001, of the result of the ballot.

8. The ballot did not establish that a majority of the workers voting supported the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Company for the purposes of collective bargaining within the bargaining unit.

9. The CAC accordingly declares, in accordance with paragraph 29(4) of Schedule A1 to the Act, that the Union is not entitled to be recognised by the Company as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

Panel Chair    Prof Roy Lewis   

Members        Dennis Cameron

                        David Crowe

Date               27 November 2001