Case Number:TUR1/60/2001

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RECOGNITION

DECLARATION THAT UNION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED

The Parties

Manufacturing Science and Finance Union

and

APW New Forest limited

Introduction

• The Manufacturing Science and Finance Union (MSF) (the union) submitted a claim to the Central Arbitration Committee, which was dated 6 April 2001, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by APW New Forest Ltd (the company) in respect of all permanent direct labour force employees (production and shop floor workers) excluding temporary workers, employed by the Company. 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.

• In accordance with section 263 of the 1992 Act the Chairman of the CAC established a Panel to deal with the claim, consisting of Professor John Goodman (deputy chairman), Ms Susan Corby and Mr Simon Faiers (members). The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Ms Patricia Bax and subsequently Ms Jane Dines.
•  
• By its decision dated 25 April 2001, the Panel decided to accept the application.

• The parties met to agree the appropriate bargaining unit. The agreed bargaining unit was the original bargaining unit, as proposed by the union, plus Team Leaders and temporary employees who have completed six months service with the company.
 
• By its decision dated 4 June 2001 the Panel decided that the application was valid following the application of the validity tests to the revised bargaining unit.
 
• From the re-application of the validity tests it was clear that the union did not claim to have a majority of workers in the bargaining unit. The Panel decided that a ballot should be held. The Panel directed that a qualified independent person (QIP) should be appointed to conduct a ballot of all workers in the defined bargaining unit upon the question of whether they wished the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. By its decision dated 20 June 2001, the panel, taking note of the parties' view, decided that the ballot should take the form of a postal ballot.

The Ballot

• The Industrial Society was appointed as QIP on 20 June 2001 to conduct the ballot and the parties were notified on the same date. The ballot closed on 19 July 2001.

• The QIP reported to the CAC, on the 19 July 2001, that of the bargaining unit of one hundred and twelve (112) as defined, sixty (60) 53.5%, had voted in the ballot. Twenty three (23) people had voted to support the proposal that the union be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining with the company on behalf of the bargaining unit. Thirty seven (37) people had voted to reject that proposal.

Declaration

• The CAC has informed the company and the union on 19 July 2001 of the result of the ballot in accordance with paragraph 29 (2) of Schedule1A of the Act.

• The ballot establishes that there is not a majority of the workers voting for recognition and therefore the union is not entitled to be recognised. The CAC, therefore, issues this declaration in accordance with paragraph 29 (4) of Schedule A1 of the Act.

Panel:

Professor John Goodman

Susan Corby

Simon Faiers

Date: 20 July 2001