Case Number: TUR1/61[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:
M S F
and
Aim Composites Limited
Introduction
1. M S F ( the Union) submitted an application to the C A C dated 9 April 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by AIM COMPOSITES LIMITED ( the Company ) in respect of weekly paid shop floor employees at Waterbeach. The C A C gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 11 April 2001. The Company submitted a response to the application on 20 April 2001, which was copied to the Union.
2. In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the C A C Chairman established a Panel to consider the case. The Panel consisted of three members: Professor Frank Burchill, Deputy Chairman, Mr. Eamonn Barry and Mr. Paul Gates as Members. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel and Parties was Lisa Reay.
The Panel's Decision
3. The Panel is required by the Act to decide whether the Union's application to the C A C is valid within the terms of paragraphs 4 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. In response to the Union's application, the Company did not specifically dispute any of the admissibility and validity tests only stating that they did not accept the figure of the Union Members as they had not seen any evidence to confirm the level of membership within the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer also advised that they did not accept that a majority would support recognition. The Union explained that a check was carried out by ACAS in early 2000 which confirmed their members within the bargaining unit. The Panel has considered all the remaining tests and is satisfied that the Union's application meets all the statutory criteria.
4. Paragraph 36 (1) (a) of Schedule A1 provides that an application is not admissible unless the C A C decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit. Paragraph 36 (1) (b) asks the C A C to decide whether a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
5. The Union asserted that 42 of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of M S F. According to their figures there were 102 workers in the bargaining unit in total. The Employer initially disputed this and said that there were 98 workers in the bargaining unit. In order to confirm the levels of membership within the proposed bargaining unit the Panel requested the Case Manager to ask the Company to provide a list of names of Workers within the proposed bargaining unit and the Union to provide details of their Members within their proposed bargaining unit. Letters confirming that these names would be checked were faxed and posted to the Parties on 23 April 2001. The Case Manager did not copy the names on each Party's list to the other Party or to the Panel Members. A report of these findings were sent to the Union, Employer and Panel Members on 4 April 2001.
6. The Case Manager reported her findings to the Panel and explained in detail the methodology she had used in obtaining the necessary information. She also confirmed with the Employer that the current correct figure of workers within the proposed bargaining unit is 106. The check showed that there were 37 names which were common to both lists. The total number of Workers in the proposed bargaining unit as confirmed by the Employer was 106. These figures show that 35% of Workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel therefore concluded that the Membership level exceeds the required 10%.
7. The Panel is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, a majority of Workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining in respect of the bargaining unit proposed by M S F. The Panel reached this conclusion by using its industrial relations experience, expertise and knowledge, and considers that a majority of Workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. By using their industrial relations expertise, the Panel is satisfied that there will be Workers within the proposed bargaining unit who prefer not to commit themselves to becoming Union Members until the Union has gained recognition. A density of 35% Membership within the proposed bargaining unit would demonstrate a likelihood that a majority of workers would support recognition by the Union.
8.
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 C A C.
Panel Chair: Professor Frank Burchill
Members: Eamonn Barry
Paul Gates
Date: 10 May 2001