Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 2 June 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1305(2023)

02 June 2023

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

GMB

and

Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd

1. Introduction

1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 1 March 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Apcoa Parking (UK) Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) (Excluding Managers).”^{[footnote 1]} The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd, 1A Heathfield Road, Bromley, BR1 3RN.” The application was received by the CAC on 2 March 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 9 March 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham and Mr David Coats. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3) By its written decision dated 3 April 2023 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. On 15 May 2023 the parties notified the CAC that they had reached an agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit and this was “Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) (Excluding Managers).” The location of the bargaining unit was “Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd, 1A Heathfield Road, Bromley, BR1 3RN.” This bargaining unit comprised the same workers as that originally proposed by the Union.

2. Issues

4) Paragraph 22 of the Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) provides that, if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the unions, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of these qualifying conditions is fulfilled. The three qualifying conditions are:

(i) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.

(ii) the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

(iii) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

Paragraph 22(5) provides that “membership evidence” for these purposes is:

(a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or

(b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.

The Union’s claim to majority membership and submission that it should be recognised without a ballot

5) In a letter dated 15 May 2023 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an e-mail dated 15 May 2023, stated “GMB confirms/believes we have the majority GMB Union membership within the agreed Bargaining Unit. Therefore, GMB submits it should be granted recognition, without the need to ballot.”

3. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s claim that it should be recognised without a ballot

6) On 17 May 2023 the CAC copied the Union’s e-mail of 15 May 2023 to the Employer and invited the Employer to make submissions in relation to the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and in relation to the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.

7) In its response dated 23 May 2023 the Employer stated that “APCOA is requesting that Recognition be put to a ballot of the members at our Bromley site. We have had good Industrial Relations with colleagues and have had no material issues or complaints from them. We have been approached recently by several colleagues who have said that there is pressure coming from two Union members for Recognition and that they wish to remain anonymous because of fear of potential reprisals. If the ballot is held it will give us all the peace of mind that the result is the true wishes of the members at the Bromley base.”

4. Summary of the Union’s response to the Employer’s claim that a ballot should take place

8) In a response dated 24 May 2023 the Union stated that it believed the membership evidence was credible and supported the fact that the Union had majority membership within the bargaining unit. The Union went on to say “we submit, that there is no evidence from the employer that supports their claim, that the majority of employees do not want GMB recognition. It is however evident, that GMB has 66% union membership within the bargaining unit, which we believe provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workforce, in support of union recognition. Therefore, GMB respectfully believe there to be no need or criteria for a ballot as requested by the employer, for the reasons stated above.”

5. Considerations

9) The Schedule requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must declare the Union to be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit unless it decides that any of the three qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. If the Panel considers that any of those specific conditions is fulfilled, it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.

10) The membership and support check conducted on 20 March 2023 had shown the Employer listing a total of 35 workers. As stated in the acceptance decision dated 3 April 2023, the Union had provided a spreadsheet listing 27 union members. The number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 23, a membership level of 65.71%. It has not been suggested that the level of membership has changed since this check was conducted. The Panel accordingly accepts that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

11) The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision as to whether any of the qualifying conditions laid down in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled.

Paragraph 22(4) (a)

12) The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. The Employer mentioned good industrial relations in its comments but did not expand on this other than to say that it had experienced good industrial relations. It went on to refer to “peace of mind” but has provided no evidence to explain why a ballot should be held. Therefore, in this case neither party has submitted evidence that holding a secret ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations. The Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (b)

13) The second condition is that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Employer stated that it had been approached recently by several colleagues who had said that there was pressure coming from two Union members for Recognition but that they wished to remain anonymous because of fear of potential reprisals. Even on the Employer’s case there is no suggestion of significant numbers of union members not wanting collective bargaining. In any event, these comments cannot be verified and therefore the CAC has no such evidence, and this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (c)

14) The third condition is that membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced, and this condition does not apply.

6. Declaration of recognition

15) The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) (Excluding Managers)” located at the Employer’s site in Heathfield Road Bromley BR1 3RN”.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr David Coats

02 June 2023

---

1. The request for recognition dated 2 February 2023 was made in relation to “Civil Enforcement Officers, Bromley based: 1A Heathfield Road Bromley BR1 3RN.” There was no reference to “excluding managers”. The Union clarified that it was never the intention to include managers in the proposed bargaining unit and confirmed that there were no Civil Enforcement Officers who were managers. ↩