Case Number: TUR1/630/(2008)

22 April 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:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

and

South West Wales Media Limited

Introduction

1. The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application dated 27 March 2008 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by South West Wales Media Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit constituting “Reporters, feature writers, newsdesk staff, sub editors, sports desk staff, multimedia journalists and photographers on newspapers and associated products at SWWM offices in Adelaide Street, Swansea, Cowell Street, Llanelli and King Street, Carmarthen”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 28 March 2008. On 4 April 2008 the Employer submitted a response to the CAC, 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 CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Ms Mary Stacey, Deputy Chairman, and, as Members, Mrs Jean Johnson and Mr Paul Talbot. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was James Jacob.

3. The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 10 April 2008. The period was extended on two occasions until 17 April and again to 25 April 2008 in order to allow more time for the Panel to consider all evidence and reach a decision.

Issues

4. The Panel is required by 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 paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore should be accepted.

5. In its application the Union stated that they had written to the Employer on 6 March 2008 (a copy of their request letter to the Employer was attached). It stated that there were 88 workers in its proposed bargaining unit, 47 of whom were members of the Union. The Union also stated that it could provide, on a confidential basis, membership evidence to support this figure. The Panel noted that in the application that the Union indicated other journalistic staff had attended NUJ meetings and had expressed a wish for the NUJ to be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining on their behalf.

6. In its response to the Union’s application, the Employer stated that it received the Union’s written request for recognition on 7 March 2008 and provided a copy of its letter of response to the Union dated 11 March 2008. In that letter the Employer rejected the Union’s request.

7. In its response to the Union’s application, the Employer stated that it disagreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. However it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit stated by the Union. The Employer further stated that the number of workers employed were 328 compared to 280 in the Union’s application. The Panel noted that in response to the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer stated that a number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit had written following the union’s request for recognition, informing the Employer that they had subsequently resigned their union membership and other workers in the proposed bargaining unit had expressed strong objections to recognition and had even expressed their intention to resign their posts if recognition of the Union was granted. The Panel further noted that the Employer stated this was an indication of how detrimental to good industrial relations the Union’s request had already been. However, the Employer did not contend that the Union’s application failed to meet any of the other admissibility or validity criteria in the Schedule.

Considerations

8. 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 considered all the facts submitted by the Employer and the Union in reaching its decision. 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 as the Union provided a copy of the request made to the Employer dated 6 March 2008 to recognise it for collective bargaining in respect of the proposed bargaining unit described in paragraph 1 of this decision. The request was made in writing and identified the Union, the proposed bargaining unit and stated that the request was made under the Schedule. The Panel is satisfied that the Union have a certificate of independence and that the Employer employs at least 21 workers.

9 The Panel is also required to address whether it is satisfied that the admissibility criteria of paragraph 36 (1) of the Schedule have been 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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit and whether a majority of the workers constituting the Unions’ proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

10. The Union declared in its application that 47 out of the 88 workers included in their proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union, which expressed as a percentage is 53.4%. The Employer did in its response to the application dispute the membership figure stated by the Union. Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit is clearly above the level required by the Schedule and therefore the Panel is satisfied that the 10% test is met.

11. According to paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, it is the Panel’s duty to assess whether a majority of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. The Panel is mindful that at this stage of the process it is obliged under the Schedule to assess support for recognition of the Union by deciding whether the majority are ‘likely’ to support the application and not to test ‘actual’ support for recognition. The Panel is satisfied that membership of a union can be accepted as indicative of that person’s likely support for collective bargaining on his or her behalf by the Union in relation to the Employer. The Panel feels that it is more likely than not that a worker who has joined a union would be in favour of that union negotiating with the Employer on matters related to terms and conditions of employment. The Panel is therefore satisfied that, on the light touch analysis required in determining likelihood of support, we accept at this stage the Union’s membership figure demonstrates a likelihood of support for Union recognition. Accordingly we consider that this admissibility criterion has been met based on the level of existing membership in the proposed bargaining unit of 53.4%.

12. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the majority of workers within that unit would be likely to support recognition and therefore the test under paragraph 36 (1)(b) is met.

13. Finally, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 and is in accordance with paragraph 11 (2) of the Schedule.

Decision

14. For the reasons given above, the Panel is satisfied that the application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 36(1)(a) and 36(1)(b) of Schedule A1. The Panel is also satisfied that the application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1. The application is therefore accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Mary Stacey

Mrs Jean Johnson

Mr Paul Talbot

22 April 2008