Case Number: TUR1/624(2008)
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:
Unite the
and
Knightsbridge Guarding
Limited
Introduction
1.
Unite
the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 28 February 2008
that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by
Knightsbridge Guarding Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising
“all hourly paid employees up to and including the level of shift manager
employed by Knightsbridge Guarding Limited on the Lehman Brothers contract at
25 Bank Street, London”. The CAC gave
both parties notice of receipt of the application on 29 February 2008. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC
dated 6 March 2008 that was copied to the Union.
2.
In
accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations
(Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chairman established a Panel to
deal with the case. The Panel consisted
of Professor Roy Lewis, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Mr George
Getlevog and Mr Michael Leahy. The Case
Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sarah Kendall.
3.
The
CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 14 March
2008. The period was initially extended
to 28 March 2008 in order to allow time for a membership and support check to
take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report and for the
Panel to consider their comments before arriving at a decision. The Panel extended the period again to 8
April 2008 to enable the Union to provide further information and for the Panel
to consider the evidence before making a decision.
Issues
4.
The
Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act to decide whether
the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to
9; is made in accordance with paragraph 12; is admissible within the terms of
paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore to be accepted.
5.
The
Union’s application stated that there were 70 workers in the proposed bargaining
unit 42 of whom, a significant majority, were union members. The Union stated that the bargaining unit
had not been agreed with the Employer and that the Employer had not proposed
that Acas be requested to assist in this matter.
6.
The
Union annexed the initial request letter to the Employer dated 22 February 2008
to its application. The Employer had
declined the Union’s request in its letter dated 27 February 2008 citing
correspondence dated 18 and 31 January 2008.
7.
The
Employer’s response dated 6 March 2008 stated that there were 93 workers in the
proposed bargaining unit, 91 of whom were hourly paid and 2 of whom were
salaried. The Employer argued that the
Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate bargaining unit. However, the Employer’s views on the
appropriateness of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit will, if necessary, be
addressed at a later stage of these proceedings.
8.
In
relation to the numbers of workers who were members of the Union the Employer
stated that it was not aware of who was or was not a member of the Union. The Employer stated that it did not believe
that there was a requirement for union recognition as there were adequate
channels of communication between the company and the employees.
Membership and support check
9.
To
assist in the determination of the admissibility criteria specified by
paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, the Panel requested that an independent check
of union membership and support for collective bargaining in the proposed
bargaining unit should be conducted by the Case Manager.
10.
A
list of workers in the proposed bargaining unit was provided by the
Employer. The Union provided a list of
Union members in the proposed bargaining unit, and a copy of a petition. The information from the Employer and Union
was received on 14 and 16 March 2008 respectively. It was agreed that to preserve
confidentiality the information provided by the parties would not be copied to
the other party. The arrangements for
the membership and support check were confirmed in letters sent to both parties
on 12 March 2008.
11.
The
Employer provided a list of 88 names of workers in the proposed bargaining
unit. The Union provided a list of 47
names of members and a petition comprising 56 signatures. The Case Manager carried out a comparison of
the lists and the petition. The check of
union membership established that 44 workers in the proposed bargaining unit were
Union members, that is, a membership level of 50%. The check of the Union’s petition in favour
of union recognition established that 55 workers who signed the petition were
in the proposed bargaining unit. These
comprising 41 signatures from members of the Union and 14 from non-members. The figure of 55 represented 62.5% of the
workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
12.
The
results were produced as a report that was circulated to the parties for their
comments on 17 March 2008.
Summary of the parties’ comments
13.
Neither
party wished to comment on the Case Manager’s report.
14.
The
Union was invited in a letter dated 31 March 2008 to state when its petition
had been conducted. In an email dated 1
April 2008 the Union advised that the signatures on the petition had been
collected between 13 and 15 March 2008.
Considerations
15.
In
deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the
admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this
decision are satisfied. The Panel has
taken into account all the evidence and argument relating to the issues
specified at paragraph 4 above submitted by the Employer and the Union in
reaching its decision.
16.
The
Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within
the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule. It is also satisfied that the application is
not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and
37 to 42 and was made in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Schedule.
17.
The
remaining issue is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph
36(1) of the Schedule are met. In
accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Schedule, the Panel must
determine whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers
in the proposed bargaining unit, and whether a majority of the 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.
Paragraph 36(1)(a)
18.
The
Case Manager’s report dated 17 March 2008 indicated that Union members
constituted 50% of the proposed bargaining unit. The Panel is therefore satisfied that at
least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the
Union and that the Union’s application is admissible within the terms of
paragraph 36(1)(a).
Paragraph 36(1)(b)
19.
The
test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether a majority of
the 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.
20.
To
support its position the Union relied not only on its density of membership in
the proposed bargaining unit but also on a petition it had conducted in March
2008. The Case Manager’s report
indicated that 62.5% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit had signed
the petition in favour of recognition of the Union.
21.
The
Employer in its response dated 6 March 2008 stated that it did not believe that
there was a need for collective bargaining but did not provide any evidence to
show that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were not
likely to support recognition.
22.
In
this case half the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the
Union. Further, 55 workers in the
proposed bargaining unit signed the petition; 41 signatures from members of the
Union and 14 from non-members.
23.
The
Employer has not disputed that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit
would be likely to favour recognition of the Union, and in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary, the Panel is accordingly satisfied that the majority
of 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 in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
36(1)(b) of the Schedule.
Decision
24.
The
Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, is made in
accordance with paragraph 11, and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs
33 to 42 of Schedule A1. The application
is therefore accepted.
Panel
Professor
Roy Lewis, Chairman
Mr
George Getlevog
Mr
Michael Leahy
8
April 2008