Case number TUR1/59(2001)

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON THE FORM OF THE BALLOT

The Parties:

TGWU

and

Whitbread PLC

Introduction

1. The TGWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 2nd April 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Whitbread PLC. (the Employer) for staff employed in Customer Delivery, Storage and Handling and Operations Administration, by Whitbread PLC at the Ordsall Lane site The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 April 2001 and invited responses from the employer in regard to the application.

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 OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Anne Feehally.

3. The Panel appointed to consider the above application decided on 4th May that the application was admissible. The parties had already agreed the bargaining unit, and so in the same decision the Panel announced that a secret ballot should be held. The parties were advised subsequently that the Panel would wait until the end of notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot.

4. The notification period under para 24(5) of the Schedule has now elapsed. The CAC has not been notified by either party singly or by both jointly that they do not want the ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2)).

Considerations

5. In deciding the type of ballot to be held, i.e. postal, workplace or combined, the CAC must take into account the following considerations under paragraph 25(5) of the Schedule:

(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;

(b) costs and practicality;

6. In its emailed letter dated 11th May 2001, the Employer stated a preference for a postal ballot on the grounds that it would allow "... the most opportunity for everyone to cast their vote without undue pressure being exerted..." at the time of voting.

7. The Union, on the other hand, has stated its preference for a workplace ballot because its experience suggests that it is "...the easiest and most practical way to conduct a ballot." The Union also suggested that employees who were absent would have to be contacted by post.

8. The panel have considered the views of both parties carefully. There are no exceptional circumstances in the present case justifying a mixed ballot and it would, therefore, not be possible to make the arrangement asked for by the Union for postal contact with absentees.

9. A majority of the panel has concluded that a postal ballot is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. In the light of this decision, however, the panel is particularly concerned, in view of the incidence of shift working, to ensure that the Union is afforded reasonable facilities for access to the workers in the unit prior to voting. It is its understanding that the employer is aware of this need and will grant such facilities.

Decision

10. The majority of the Panel has thus concluded that a postal ballot would be the most appropriate in this instance. The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Professor Roger Rideout Panel Chair

Mr. Ged Fisher Members

Lord David Lea OBE

25 May 2001