Number: TUR1/630/2008

  7th July 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:

 

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.         By a decision dated 22 April 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 confirmed in writing to the CAC on the 13 June 2008 that they had reached an agreement that the appropriate bargaining unit was as follows:    

 

“Reporters, Feature Writers (including commercial features), Newsdesk staff, Sub-editors, Sports Desk staff, Multi Media Services Department staff, Editorial Assistants, Assistant Editors, Picture Desk staff, Photographers, Editorial PAs” based at

Adelaide Street, Swansea

Cowell Street, Llanelli

King Street, Carmarthen.

 

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 13 June 2008 the Case Manager invited both Parties to make submissions on the matter for consideration by the Panel.

 

 5.        In its letter of 18 June 2008 the Union made the following submissions:

 

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

 

            b) There was more than 10% Union membership within the bargaining unit.

 

c) In the view of the Union, the majority of workers would support union recognition. Approximately 50% of employees within the bargaining unit are Union members or in the process of joining although due to fluctuations of staffing levels the union could not give an exact percentage. The Union stated that it would be happy to give further precise details in confidence to the CAC over the exact membership level. Furthermore the Union stated it had 12 forms signed by staff, a number of whom are not Union members, expressing support for recognition and would be happy to provide the CAC with copies of these forms in confidence.

 

            d) There was no competing application from another union.

 

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

 

6.         In a letter dated 18 June 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) In the view of the Employer based on written communications, the majority of workers would not support recognition. A number of workers had written to the Employer to inform that they had resigned from the union as a result of its application for recognition while other workers had written expressing their objections to recognition. Some had expressed their intention to resign their posts if the union succeeded in its recognition bid. The employer offered to supply details of those expressing views, on an anonymous basis if the CAC required the evidence. 

 

d) There was no competing application from another union.

 

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

 

Considerations

 

7.         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 the 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.

 

8.         With regard to the first test and whether Union members constitute at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit. Union membership within the bargaining unit is clearly above the level required by the Schedule and was not disputed by the Employer. The Panel is therefore satisfied that paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule is met and that 10% of the workers constituting the new bargaining unit are members of the union.   

 

9.         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 Panel is mindful 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 indicative of a person’s likely support for collective bargaining on his or her behalf by the Union in relation to the Employer. The Panel notes that the Union has demonstrated considerable membership levels in the region of 50% of the agreed bargaining unit and that Union membership is likely to be indicative of a desire for collective bargaining in this case, given the background of a recognition campaign by the Union. The Panel, using its industrial knowledge and experience is satisfied that on the basis of the light touch analysis required for establishing likelihood of support, the Union has density of membership of approximately 50% and that this provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of support for Union recognition at this stage. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the admissibility test at paragraph 45 (b) is also met. The Panel, having considered all the other tests, is satisfied that these are also met.

 

Decision

 

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

 

 

Panel

Ms Mary Stacey

Mrs Jean Johnson

Mr Paul Talbot

 

7th July 2008