Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 26 March 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1386(2024)

26 March 2024

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

The Parties:

Community

and

Euro Car Parts

1. Introduction

1)         Community (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 30 January 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Euro Car Parts (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “salaried warehouse operatives directly employed by Euro Car Parts at the Tamworth T1 and T2 site.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Euro Car Parts T1 and T2, Birch Coppice Business Park, Danny Morson Way, Dordon, Tamworth, B78 1SE.” The application was received by the CAC on 30 January 2024 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 6 February 2024 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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Roger Roberts and Mr Ian Hanson. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         In the Employer’s response to the Union’s application dated 6 February 2024, the Employer proposed a different bargaining unit namely “the Salaried Warehouse Operatives at a grading below First Line Manager directly employed by Euro Car Parts Limited at T1 and T2 within the Central Distribution Centre. It is agreed that agency staff will not be included.” The Union was invited to comment on this and in an e mail dated 7 February 2024 the Union said it would agree to the definition of the bargaining unit outlined in the Employer’s response document. By a decision dated 6 March 2024 the Panel accepted the Union’s application.

4)         In a letter from the Case Manager dated 6 March 2024, the Union was asked whether it claimed that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union. By an e-mail dated 6 March 2024 the Union said that it did not believe it had majority membership within the bargaining unit.

2. Issues

5)         On 6 March 2024, the Panel, not satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that a secret ballot would be held. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule, before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

6)         The notification period under paragraph 24(5) ended on 20 March 2024. The CAC was not notified by the Union or by both parties jointly that they did not want the ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2) of the Schedule.

3. Unions’ submissions on the form of ballot

7)         In an e-mail dated 10 March 2024 the Union stated its preference for a workplace ballot.  The Union referred to the following grounds:

“Fairness

There are a large number of migrant workers at Euro Car Parts, typically these workers rent properties and have been known to move home frequently.  Euro Car Parts (ECP) operate an electronic payslip system and do not generally post correspondence to the workforce (disciplinary invitation letters tend to be hand delivered), this means that anyone who has moved home and not updated their address details will not receive a ballot paper which would threaten both the validity and the fairness of a ballot.

There are also language issues on site as the workforce are multi-cultural in their make-up, by adding steps for the worker into the process (understanding the contents of a ballot paper and posting it) we feel that the fairness of the result could be called into question by way of a lack of understanding. An on-site ballot is far more likely to produce a fair result, something that both parties should welcome.

Costs

Given the size of the bargaining unit there is a considerable cost associated with conducting a postal ballot, Community are happy to cover our half of this cost however we feel that an in-person ballot with postal papers being sent to any absent workers would be the most cost effective and environmentally friendly measure.  

Practicality

As outlined above there are concerns regarding the percentage of the bargaining unit who have correct postal details with the company, therefore the practical solution would be to hold an in-person ballot to ensure that the workforce have their access to the democratic process.

The shift patterns would be a question for the employer to answer in relation to the practical measures of conducting an in-person ballot.  It should be feasible for ECP to release workers in groups from their shift to cast a vote, this would also be the fairest way to ensure the workforce participate in the process.  The works canteen at ECP is a suitable spot for accommodating the workplace ballot, it has ample space.

Preferences

Community’s preference is for an in person vote to be conducted on each shift with workers in the bargaining unit being released from their duties to cast their vote in the works canteen.  We would be happy to provide in person assistance if needed due to the scale of the task, we would be happy for ECP to match this resource from their side.  Both parties should now be willing to put democracy to the test, this method is the most effective way of achieving a meaningful result through the workplace ballot.”

4. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

8)         In an e-mail dated 12 March 2024 the Employer stated its preference for a postal ballot. The Employer went on to explain:

“(1) Paragraph 25(5)(a) – “fairness of ballot” given past practice of the Union’s petition from 3 years ago, and our continued scepticism on the veracity of the most recent petition held at our premises (please see our previous comments), we believe a fair result, that the parties have confidence in,  can only be achieved if the ballot was held via the post, allowing all our colleagues to make their considered decision in their own time and away from workplace pressures. This will avoid a repeat of people signing petitions (or in this case voting) who were not in the bargaining unit; people signing on a number of occasions or on behalf of others.

(2) Paragraph 25(5)(b) “costs and practicality” – the postal ballot would be a more practical solution and, in these circumstances, more cost effective for a number of reasons:

• Our current operations are experiencing additional volumes as we are running a project to improve availability of certain products in our branches by reducing our operational backlog (eradicate overdue branch replenishments/ aged stock) – this particular project has been running for 4 weeks and anticipate it continuing for the next 6-8 weeks; this has necessitated our requesting colleagues to work over-time. Consequently, we have a legitimate concern that holding the ballot at our workplace will operate as a significant distraction to our colleagues during working hours and therefore adversely impact our business operations at a critical and pressured time. Any delays would necessitate having to rely on further overtime which would lead to inevitable increased “costs”. It is essential that our business operations are allowed to operate safely and efficiently during these peak times. A postal ballot will have less impact on the running of the Company which is important for all at this busy time.

• Community has previously acknowledged in correspondence the variety of languages that are spoken by members of the proposed bargaining unit. We therefore have concerns that a lack of understanding of the process may confuse our colleagues who are not proficient in English and we view it as a material risk that those colleagues may be more easily influenced to do something they do not understand if the ballot is held in person and on site. The five most common languages at site (after English) are Arabic, Urdu, Romanian, Hindi, Polish. We would therefore propose offering to translate the postal instructions into each of those languages to ensure that those colleagues fully understand what is being proposed and can make an informed decision free of any improper influence. We are used to dealing with communicating with these colleagues in this manner. We therefore believe that a postal ballot will be more practical and fairer for all.

• There is a significant risk the ballot on site will affect our productivity during shift changes – currently we operate a COVID-driven 30-minute gap between those ending their shift and colleagues starting theirs – if colleagues then attend the ballot on site to vote either at the end or beginning of a shift, we are concerned that the 30 minutes would turn into a much larger gap, thereby adversely impacting our productivity and in turn increasing costs.

• The ballot on site practically may create a visible divide between those colleagues wishing to support union recognition and those that don’t.”

9)         In a further email dated 14 March 2024 after submissions had been exchanged the Employer sought to clarify a point raised by the Union. The Employer said “It may re-assure the Panel to learn that we do maintain accurate contact details for all our employees, which not only includes home details, but also email and phone details. We use our colleagues’ home details all the time for communications, including home visits. That information is provided direct from our colleagues. As such we can facilitate the ballot in this manner. We do not believe that there will be many, if any, employees who have not updated their details as it has never been an issue for the Company but if the Union is concerned, we would be happy to facilitate a communication in advance of any postal ballot reminding people to update their details.”

5. Considerations

10)       When determining the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:

(a)        the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;

(b)       costs and practicality;

(c)        such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

11)       The parties have put forward two different types of ballot for the Panel to consider. The Union have argued for a workplace ballot, whereas the Employer has submitted that the ballot should be a postal ballot.

12)       The Panel has considered carefully the arguments of both parties and taken into account the considerations specified at paragraph 10 above:

(a) In the judgement of the Panel, besides the assertions by the Employer about the past practices of the Union, there is no substantiating evidence to suggest that a workplace ballot would likely be affected by unfairness or malpractice. However, the Panel is persuaded that a postal vote will enable private consideration of voting preference and is most likely to result in an outcome in which the parties have confidence. The Panel noted the comment of both parties regarding languages spoken at the site which in their view supports a postal ballot.

(b) In the judgement of the Panel, a postal ballot would incur lower costs. Further, when assessing the issue of practicality, the Panel has taken into account both the practical needs of workers in terms of accessibility and participation, and the practical needs of the Employer, in terms of the shift patterns at the workplace and the potential for a workplace ballot to disrupt commercial activity given the shift pattern and overtime system currently in place as described by the Employer. It is the assessment of the Panel that a postal ballot is far more practical for both parties than a workplace ballot.

(c) No other considerations were deemed as appropriate.

6. Decision

13)       The decision of the Panel is that the ballot should be a postal ballot.

14)       The name of the QIP appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Roger Roberts

Mr Ian Hanson

26 March 2024