Number: TUR1/618/2008

   03 June 2008

 

 

 

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

 

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

 

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

 

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

 

AGREEMENT OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

 

 

 

The Parties:

 

Unite the Union

 

and

 

GSI Group Limited

 

           

 

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 14 February 2008 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by GSI Group Limited (the Employer).  The Union’s proposed bargaining unit was described as “Production employees”.  The CAC gave both Parties notice of receipt of the application on 14 February 2008.  On 21 February 2008 the Employer submitted a response to the CAC, which was then 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 consider the case.  The Panel consisted of Professor Paul Davies (Panel Chairman), Simon Faiers and Ms Bronwyn McKenna (Members).  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

 

3.         By a decision dated 13 March 2008, the Panel accepted the Union’s application.  The Parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit.  The Union and the Employer cofirmed in writing to the CAC on the 28 April 2008 and 2 May 2008 respectively, that they had reached an agreement that the appropriate bargaining unit was as follows:    

 

“all employees at the Taunton site of GSI with the exception of management from the level of supervisor upwards.”

 

4.         As the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union in its application, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.  0n 2 May 2008 the Case Manager invited both Parties to make submissions on the matter for consideration by the Panel.

 

 5.      In its letter of 8 May 2008 the Union stated that there were now 17 members out of a bargaining unit of 25 workers.  This gave a membership density of 68% and clearly indicated that the 10% test was met.

 

6.         In a letter dated 9 May 2008 the Employer made the following submissions:

 

a)         There was no recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the bargaining unit. 

b)         It did not dispute that there was 10% union membership within the agreed bargaining unit.

c)         The overwhelming majority of employees did not support union recognition despite the level of union membership.  In the Employer’s view it was for this reason that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations

d)         There was no competing application from another union.

f)          There had been no previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit.

 

Case Manager’s membership check

 

7.         Following the submissions received from the parties and to assist the determination of the two admissibility tests under paragraph 45(a) and 45(b) of Schedule A1, namely whether 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the Union and whether a majority of the workers in this bargaining unit are likely to favour recognition of the Union, the Panel instructed that the Case Manager carry out checks on the level of union membership within the bargaining unit and the number of workers who had signed a petition supporting recognition of the Union. 

 

8.         In letters to both Parties dated 16 May 2008, the Case Manager requested that the Employer provided a list of the workers within the agreed bargaining unit giving their full name, address, and job titles, and that the Union provided a list of its members stating their full name, date of birth, date of joining, paid up to date and confirmation of membership status within the agreed bargaining unit..  The Employer provided a list of 26 workers within the agreed bargaining unit and the Union provided a list of 18 Union members within its agreed bargaining unit.  Both Parties provided the information on a confidential basis.  

 

9.         The result of the membership check showed that there were 26 workers in the bargaining unit of whom 18 were members of the Union, giving a membership level of 69.23%.  A report of these results was circulated to the Parties on 22 May 2008 and their comments invited.

 

10.       By e-mail dated 28 May 2008 and 29 May 2008 the Employer and the Union respectively, stated that they did not wish to comment on the report.

 

 

 

Considerations

 

11.       The Panel is satisfied on the evidence available that the application is valid in terms of the tests laid down in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 49 of the Schedule, namely that there is no existing recognition agreement in force covering any of the workers in the determined bargaining unit, that there is no competing application and that there has been no previous application to the CAC in respect of the determined bargaining unit.  The remaining tests before the Panel are whether, in accordance with paragraphs 45(a) and (b) of the Schedule, 10% of the workers constituting the new bargaining unit are members of the union and that a majority of those workers would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.  

 

12.       With regard to the first test and whether Union members constitute at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit, the Case Manager’s check established that 69.23% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union.  The evidence available before the Panel, therefore, establishes that at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.  The Panel is therefore satisfied that the 10% test set out in paragraph 45(a) is met. 

 

13.   The second issue for the Panel to consider is whether, as required by paragraph 45(b) a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.  The membership check produced by the Case Manager showed that 18 (69.23%) of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union.   The Panel is satisfied that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the  high level of union membership provides sufficient evidence that the majority of workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.   The Panel is therefore satisfied that the admissibility test at paragraph 36 (1)(b) is also met.  The Panel, having considered all the other tests, is satisfied that these are also met.

 

 

Decision

 

14.       The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC must proceed with the application. 

Panel

 

Professor Paul Davies

Mr Simon Faiers

Mr Bronwyn McKenna

 

03 June 2008