Case Number TUR1/59/00

 

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:

 

 

Whitbread PLC

 

and the

 

Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU)

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         The TGWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 March 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Whitbread PLC,  Food Supply Chain (the Company) on behalf of all staff employed in customer delivery, storage and handling and     operations administration below supervisory positions at the Company's Orsdall Road, Salford warehouse. In its application the Union stated that there were 149 workers in the bargaining unit, of which  37 were Union members. The Union also supplied a survey showing 109 signatures in support of recognition. This survey had been copied to the Company by the Union.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 April 2001.  The Company submitted a  response to the CAC on 18 April 2001 which was copied to the Union.

 

2.         In accordance with section 263 of the 1992 Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Professor Roger Rideout, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mr Ged Fisher and Lord David Lea.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Anne Feehally.

 

The Panel’s Decision

 

3.         The Panel is required by the Act to determine whether the Union’s application to the CAC should be accepted after applying the relevant validity and admissibility tests as set out in paragraphs 4-8 and 33-42 of Schedule A1 of the Act.  In response to the Union’s application, the Company questioned whether there had been sufficient evidence from the Union to show that the application fulfilled two of those tests, namely those stipulated in paragraph 36 of the Act. These are that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, and  that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.  The Company offered no evidence to counter the Union’s position on the remaining validity and admissibility tests, and agreed the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union.

 

4.                 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 order to assist the resolution of this test the Panel proposed a check, to be undertaken by the Case Manager, of the level of Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit. Both parties agreed that the Company would supply to the Case Manager a list of names of workers within the proposed bargaining unit and the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of Union members within that unit to allow a check to be undertaken.  The parties agreed that to protect the confidentiality of the workers in the bargaining unit the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and this was confirmed by a letter sent to each party. The results of the check of the membership level were circulated to the parties and the Panel on 27th April 2001. The list from the Company totalled 132 names, and these were cross referenced with the 37 names provided by the Union. 22% of those listed by the Company were also on the Union’s list. In order to allow time for the exercise to be completed, the Panel extended the period in which it had to decide whether the Union’s application should be accepted to 4th May 2001.

           


5.         Paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule provides that the CAC must be satisfied that a majority of the workers in the unit would be likely to support the claim of the Union be recognised for collective bargaining. The Panel carefully considered the survey provided by the Union, which was entitled, ‘Survey to indicate support for recognition of the T&GWU to represent all employees below supervisory grade employed in the warehouse, Whitbread Food Logistics, Ordsall Lane, and to negotiate on pay, hours, holidays and other terms and conditions.’ The Panel found that 6 names were duplicated. 103 of the signatories supported recognition.

 

6          The Panel have carefully considered the above points, and in the light of its own industrial relations experience, concluded that the Union’s application did meet both the tests in paragraph 36.  We are prepared to accept, on the balance of probabilities, that as the check of Union membership showed a  level of 22%, there are more than 10% workers in the proposed bargaining unit who are Union members. The survey showed 103 signatures, after the duplicates had been discounted, from workers  indicting that they supported recognition of the TGWU. The Panel therefore concluded that the majority of workers  constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

 

8.         For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

 

9.         In view of the parties having agreed the bargaining unit the Panel needs to consider whether to arrange for a secret ballot to be held. From the evidence seen the  majority of workers in the bargaining unit are not Union members. Therefore the Panel hereby gives notice to the parties that under Paragraph 23 of Schedule A1 the CAC intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit are asked whether they want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.  

 

 

Professor Roger Rideout (Chair)

Ged Fisher

Lord David Lea OBE

4th May 2001