Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 18 October 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1337(2023)

12 July 2023

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:

United Voice of the World (UVW)

and

Lee Baron Limited

1. Introduction

1) United Voices of the World (UVW) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 8 June 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Lee Baron Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all the cleaners and concierge.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “West End Quays, Balmoral Building, 2 Praed Street, W2 1JD, Peninsula Building, 4 Praed Street, W2 1JD, Westcliffe, 1 South Wharf Road, W2 1JN.” The application was received by the CAC on 8 June 2023 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 14 June 2023 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 Laura Prince, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Roger Roberts, and Mr Nicholas Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 22 June 2023. The acceptance period was extended to 12 July 2023 in order to allow time for a membership check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving at a decision.

2. Issues

4) The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) 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; and therefore should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5) In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer on 6 April 2023. The request was dated 5 April 2023 and stated: “Under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 we request that Lee Baron recognise the trade union United Voices of the World for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect of all the cleaners and concierge working for Lee Baron at West End Quays, Balmoral Building, 2 Praed Street, W2 1JD, Peninsula Building, 4 Praed Street, W2 1JD, Westcliffe, 1 South Wharf Road, W2 1JN.” The Union stated that the Employer responded on 5 June 2023 stating, it would wish to agree to a voluntary recognition agreement.^{[footnote 1]} A copy of the Union’s letter of 5 April 2023, a response from the Employer dated 26 April 2023 and copies of e mails exchanged between the parties was attached to the application.

6) When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, “n/a.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties and the Union had agreed.

7) The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 76. The Union stated that there were 18 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 17 were members of the Union. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union said “17 of the 18 workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of our trade union, United Voices of the World. Further, they balloted for strike action with recognition being a demand on the ballot paper, and they returned a positive mandate for strike action.”

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because the cleaners and concierge represented all non-managerial workers of Lee Baron at the specified neighbouring sites. The Union said that the workers had similar terms and conditions of employment and all report to the same manager/management team. The Union said that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and highly compatible with effective management, that there were no other workers that could reasonably be included in the bargaining unit and the bargaining unit would not lead to any fragmentation of the workforce. The Union went on to say that the Employer had already entered into negotiations with the Union in respect of the terms and conditions of the bargaining unit and facilitated a meeting between the majority of union members and union officials on site, during working hours which had taken place on 30 May 2023. In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “No”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 8 June 2023 and that it would consent to its contact details being shared with Acas.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 15 July 2022 and responded on 25 July 2022 with a follow up on 29th July 2022 and heard nothing further. The Employer said that further correspondence was received on 5 April 2023 which focused on a list of requests as well as notification of a request for recognition. The Employer said that it had requested the Certificate of Independence prior to progressing. The Employer stated that there had been no response and the Certificate was not forthcoming. The Employer said its response on 26 April 2023 showed a willingness to negotiate with a view to agreeing a voluntary agreement and addressing the issues raised. The Employer enclosed a copy of all correspondence with the response document.

11) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 8 June 2023. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, but that it did “in principle” agree with the proposed bargaining unit.

12) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties, and that a meeting with Acas had taken place on 7 June 2023. The Employer stated that it did not know the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application but that this was potentially 22. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13) When asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, and when invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition the Employer did not provide an answer.

14) When asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and when asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said, “We believe previous applications were made prior to TUPE transfer to Lee Baron during the time when First Port were the employer, but the details are not known.”

5. The Union’s comments on the Employer’s response

15) The Union said that the Employer had agreed to recognise the Union in principle without disputing or rejecting the proposed bargaining unit, however, the Union did not have faith in the Employer’s desire to enter into productive negotiations on the specifics of recognition. The Union said this was based on its experience of negotiations with the Employer on other matters. The Union went on to say that the Employer claimed that the bargaining unit was potentially comprised of 22 workers, but that this was not the Union’s understanding based on information provided to it by members which suggested there was only 18 workers employed as concierge or cleaners. The Union said that as the Employer was uncertain as to numbers the CAC should accept the figure of 18. The Union concluded by saying that there had been no previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition in respect of this bargaining unit.

6. The membership and support check

16) To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the 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 (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid up members within that unit including their full names, dates of birth and job roles (where available). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 22 June 2023 from the Case Manager to both parties.

17) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 27 June 2023 and from the Union on 29 June 2023. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

18) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 18 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

19) The list of members supplied by the Union contained 17 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 17, a membership level of 94.44%.

20) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 3 July 2023 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 6 July 2023.

7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

21) Neither the Union nor the Employer had any comments to make on the report prepared as a result of the membership and support check.

8. Considerations

22) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

23) The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 12. Furthermore, 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 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

24) Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

25) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 16 - 20 above) showed that 94.44% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 17 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

26) Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that 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.

27) For the reasons given in paragraph 25 above, the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit stands at 94.44%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

28) The Panel has therefore reached the conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a majority of the 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, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

9. Decision

29) For the reasons given in paragraphs 22 - 28 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Laura Prince, Panel Chair

Mr Roger Roberts

Mr Nicholas Childs.

12 July 2023

---

1. This was not provided with the Union’s application. ↩