Case Number
TUR1/58/[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:
Transport and General Workers Union
and
Perkins Frozen Foods UK Limited
Background
1. The Transport and General Workers Union ( the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 4 April 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Perkins Frozen Foods UK Limited (the Company) in respect of employees at the Company's site in Plantation Road, Stoke, working in food processing, packing and distribution. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 April 2001.
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 three members: Ms Mary Stacey, Deputy Chairman, and Mr Bill Speirs and Mrs Jean Johnson as Members. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel and Parties was Amit Sen.
3. The Company was asked to submit a response to the application by midday 19 April 2001 but failed to do so. The Case Manager contacted the Company who stated that the matter had been referred to solicitors. The Case Manager made a further request for a response from the Company by early in the week beginning 23 April. Again no response, nor even a request for further time, was made and the CAC wrote again to the Company explaining that a response must be received by noon on 26 April 2001 if the Company wished its representations to be taken into account by the Panel when it made its decision in accordance with the legislation. A response was eventually received from the Company's solicitors at approximately 4.00 pm on Friday 27 April, after the Panel had made its decision and over twenty four hours after the extended time limit had expired.
The Panel's Decision
4. 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 should be accepted. As the Company did not respond to the CAC by the required date, the Panel was unable to establish whether it disputed any, and if so which, of the admissibility tests. The Panel has nevertheless, considered all the statutory tests and is satisfied that the Union's application meets all the statutory criteria.
5. The Union have stated that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union comprising 70 out of a bargaining unit proposed of 120 and that a further 23 workers who have not yet joined the Union have signed a petition stating that they wish the Union to be given recognition by the Company. On the basis of this information, the Panel is satisfied that the members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule) and that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (Paragraph 36(1)(b)). The Company has refused the Union's request for recognition which was made in the statutory format and the Union has a certificate of independence as a trade union from the Certification Officer. The application for recognition has been made in the form specified by the CAC and the employer has been sent a copy by the Union. There does not appear to be an existing recognition agreement in force and the application for recognition is not joint application and neither is there a competing application to consider.
6. The Panel is satisfied that the Union's application meets all the statutory criteria. The Panel's decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel Chair Mary Stacey
Members Jean Johnson
Bill Speirs
Date 27 April 2001