Case Number: TUR3/3/(2006)
CENTRAL
ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE
SCHEDULE A1 -
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON
ASSESSMENT OF SUPPORT OF A
The Parties:
The National
and
1.
The relevant background goes back to 2001-02
when the
Deputy Editor and Assistant Editor, News Editor, Deputy News Editor, District News Editor, Reporters and one of the Messengers; Chief Sub Editor, Deputy Chief Sub Editor, Assistant Chief Sub Editor and Sub-Editors; Features Editor, Assistant Features Editors and Writers/Subs; Picture Editor, Deputy Picture Editor and Photographers, Design Editor and Artist; Sports Editor, Deputy Sports Editor, Assistant Sports Editor and Writers/Subs; Night Editor, Night News Editor and Night Chief Sub Editor; Production Editor.
2.
The CAC issued a declaration of recognition on
3.
The
4. In accordance with section 263 of the Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with this case. The Panel consisted of Professor Roy Lewis, Panel Chairman, and as Members, Paul Gates and Jackie Patel. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Sharmin Khan.
5.
The Panel made a decision dated
6. The next stage of the procedure was under paragraph 70 of the Schedule. This provision requires the CAC to decide 2 specific questions: (a) whether or not the original bargaining unit continues to be an appropriate bargaining unit, and (b) if it does not so continue, what other bargaining unit or units are appropriate.
7.
A hearing was held on
8. Against the background of a redundancy exercise and a radical reorganisation of the Employer’s business, the parties were in agreement at the hearing that the original unit was no longer appropriate. However, they disagreed as to what constituted an appropriate unit or units.
9.
The
(1) 31 editorial staff working more or less exclusively on the Bristol Evening Post, including the Deputy Editor, the Assistant Editor, the News Editor, news reporters, and a “backbench” of senior sub-editors.
(2) 25 editorial staff working more or less exclusively for the Western Daily Press, including the Deputy Editor, the Assistant Editor, the News Editor, news reporters, a backbench of senior sub-editors, and the Business Editor.
(3)
81 editorial staff working in “spinal”
departments that serviced both the Bristol Evening Post and Western Daily
Press. These departments consisted of
features (31 staff), pictures (17), sub-editors (16), sports (16), and the
Community Editor (1). The
(4) 6 journalists, 5 of whom were freelance, who did not appear on the organisational chart.
10.
The critical difference between the original
bargaining unit and the
11.
The Employer did not accept that the
(1) A bargaining unit consisting of the staff working more or less exclusively on the Bristol Evening Post, excluding the Editor, who was also the Employer’s Editor-in-Chief, but including his PA (32 staff on the organisational chart).
(2) A bargaining unit consisting of the staff working more or less exclusively on the Western Daily Press, excluding the Editor of that title but including his PA (26 staff).
(3) A spinal bargaining unit consisting of (a) the editorial staff working in the spinal departments (81 staff) and (b) the administration (non-journalist) group (6 staff), who in effect comprised a further spinal department on the organisational chart.
12.
By a decision dated
13. The appropriate bargaining unit thus consisted of the following workers:
(1) Editorial staff working on the
(2) Editorial staff working on the Western
Daily Press.
(3) Editorial staff within the spinal departments servicing both the Bristol Evening Post and the Western Daily Press, including George Halladay.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt, Wendy Jean Butt, Community Editor, was to be counted as a member of the editorial staff of the spinal departments servicing both titles.
14. The following were expressly excluded from the bargaining unit:
(1) The Editor of the
(2) The Editor of the Western Daily Press.
(3) The PAs to the aforementioned Editors.
(4) The staff (other than Wendy Jean Butt)
listed under the heading of Administration (Non-journalists) on the Employer’s
organisational chart attached to Mike Norton’s witness statement.
(5) The following 5 freelance journalists: Liz Marleyn, Phil Tottle, Frank Emery, Allan Ford, and Des Price.
15. Once the CAC has notified the parties of its decisions under paragraph 70 that the original bargaining unit is no longer appropriate and which unit or units are appropriate, it is required to follow the steps laid down in paragraphs 83-89 of the Schedule. In particular, where the CAC’s opinion is not that mentioned in paragraph 83(1) or 84(1), the CAC must determine the question set out in paragraph 85(1)(a). Paragraph 83(1) applies if, in the CAC’s opinion, the new bargaining unit, as determined by the CAC, contains at least one worker falling within a statutory outside bargaining unit. A statutory outside bargaining unit is defined as, among other things, not the original unit: paragraph 83(7)(a). Paragraph 84(1) applies if, in the CAC’s opinion, the new unit contains at least 1 worker falling within an outside voluntary bargaining unit, but no worker falling within an outside statutory bargaining unit. An outside voluntary bargaining unit is defined as, among other things, not the original unit: paragraph 84(4)(a).
16. Paragraph 85(1) provides a follows:
If the CAC’s opinion is not that mentioned
in paragraph 83(1) or 84(1) it must:
(a) decide whether the difference between the
original unit and the new unit is such that the support of the union (or
unions) within the new unit needs to be assessed and
(b) inform the parties of the decision.
17. If the CAC decides that support does not to be assessed it issues a declaration in favour of recognition. However, if it decides that the support of the union or unions within the new unit needs to be assessed, it must go on to decide a series of questions under paragraphs 86-89, starting with whether, under paragraph 86(2)(a) and (b), at least 10% of the workers in the new unit are union members and the majority of workers in the new unit are likely to favour recognition.
18. At paragraph 24 of its decision dated 27 February 2007 the Panel found in effect that (a) workers employed in connection with the Western Daily Press were not in any bargaining unit, whether voluntary or one defined through the statutory process, and (b) save for those workers covered by the parties’ agreement of 19 April 2002 on the method of bargaining for the original bargaining unit, the workers employed in connection with the Bristol Evening Post were not in any other bargaining unit, whether voluntary or statutory. Accordingly the Panel’s opinion is that paragraphs 83(1) and 84(1) of the Schedule have no application in the present case. It follows that paragraph 85(1) applies.
19.
Since the parties and their legal teams were
present at the hearing on 2 February 2007, the Panel invited the parties’
representatives to express their respective views on the question posed by
paragraph 85(1)(a), with reference to the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, the
Employer’s alternative bargaining units, and such other units as the Panel
might in theory prefer. The representatives
duly obliged. In the context of the
bargaining unit proposed by the
20. The Panel takes account of the following considerations.
(1) At
paragraph 39 of its decision dated
(2) The
new unit comprises some 138 workers. The
support of the
(3) The new unit comprises workers employed in relation to the Western Daily Press, as well as the Bristol Evening Post, whereas the original comprised workers on the latter title only.
21.
In the light of these considerations the Panel
concludes that the difference between the original unit and the new unit is
such that support of the
The difference between the original unit and the new unit
is such that the support of the
PANEL
Professor Roy Lewis – Panel Chairman
Ged Fisher
Paul Gates