TUR1/61/2001 

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:

MSF

and

Aim Composites

Introduction

1.    MSF (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 8 June 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by AIM Composites Ltd. (the Employer) for all weekly paid shop floor workers employed by AIM Composites Ltd at Waterbeach. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 11 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 Frank Burchill, Deputy Chairman, and as Members, Mr. Eamonn Barry and Mr. Paul Gates. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Jane Dines.

3.     The Panel appointed to consider the above application decided on 10 May 2001 that the application was admissible. The parties, with the assistance of ACAS, were able to agree that the appropriate bargaining unit was weekly paid workers including drivers, stores people, inspectors, cleaners and supervisors, totalling 112 workers, who are on the same contractual terms and conditions. During negotiations the parties also agreed arrangements for the Union to have access to the workers prior to a ballot taking place. In a letter dated 7 June 2001, the Panel notified the parties that a secret ballot would be held as there was not a majority of Union workers in the bargaining unit . The Panel also advised the parties that it 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 elapsed on 22 June 2001. The CAC was not notified by either the Union singly or by both parties jointly that they did 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;

(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

6.     In its facsimile response dated 14 June 2001, the Employer stated a preference for a postal ballot.

7.     Initially the Union had no preference for the type of ballot to be held. In an e-mail dated 19 June 2001 they confirmed that a postal ballot would be acceptable to them also. In a further e-mail dated 25 June 2001, following an onsite meeting on 22 June 2001, the Union requested that the ballot period be extended by one week to accommodate workers who may be away from home for two weeks - the usual ballot period - due to annual holidays.

8.     The panel considered the views of the parties. In the circumstances of this case it has agreed to a postal ballot with an additional five working days for the return of the ballot papers.

Decision

9.    The Panel notified the parties of it's decision to hold a postal ballot in a letter dated 2 July 2001. This notification named election.com as the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot, and the completion date for the ballot as 7 August 2001, the usual 20 day period having been extended by five working days.

Panel Chair    Professor Frank Burchill 

Members        Eamonn Barry

                       Paul Gates

                      4 July 2001