Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 12 March 2021

Case Number: TUR1/1188(2020)

11 November 2020

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

The Parties:

GMB

and

Dyer Engineering Ltd

1. Introduction

1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 9 June 2020 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Dyer Engineering Ltd (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All permanent hourly paid shop floor workers up to and excluding Managers employed by Dyer Engineering Limited on both your sites at: Unit 3&5, Morrison Road Industrial Estate, Annfield Plain, Stanley, Co Durham, DH9 7RU and Hare Law, Industrial Estate, North Road, Annfield Plain, Stanley.” The application was received by the CAC on 3 August 2020 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 4 August 2020. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 10 August 2020 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 Professor Kenneth Miller, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Miss Kerry Holden and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3) By its written decision dated 21 September 2020 the Panel accepted the Union’s application, and the parties entered a period of 20 working days, the ‘appropriate period’ in accordance with paragraph 18(2)(a) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule), within which to negotiate and try to reach agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit. In an e-mail to the CAC dated 19 October 2020, the Employer confirmed that it agreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit as stated in its application. As the agreed bargaining unit was the same as that proposed by the Union in its application, the Panel moved to the next stage in the statutory process and, in a letter dated 19 October 2020, the Union was asked whether it claimed that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union. In an email dated 22 October 2020 the Union confirmed that it was not claiming majority membership.

2. Issues

4) On 23 October 2020, the Panel, satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not 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.

5) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) ended on 6 November 2020. 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. Submissions on the form of ballot

6) In an email to the CAC dated 29 October 2020 the Employer stated its preference for a fully postal ballot. The Employer explained that as a result of Covid-19 several restrictions were in place in an attempt to make the environment a safe and continuous place to work. For example, all visitor and contractor site visits were being kept to site essential only. The Employer said that this instruction was being communicated to all staff and all contractors.

7) The Employer further stated that staff were encouraged to stay within their own working unit to restrict close contact with colleagues. Staff were also being issued with a new monitoring device to help control and monitor their movement to help reduce the risk of infection.

8) The Employer stated that it believed a postal vote would be the safest method to conduct a ballot under the current pandemic and it therefore asked that the Panel consider its request at this unprecedented time.

9) In an email dated 31 October 2020 the Union stated that it believed a workplace ballot would be best, and it therefore asked that a workplace ballot be held.

4. 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 Employer has argued for a postal ballot whereas the Union has submitted that the ballot should be a workplace ballot.

12) The Panel, having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, has decided that, in light of the current Covid-19 Government restrictions, it does not consider it appropriate to hold a workplace ballot and therefore, the appropriate form of ballot in the circumstances would be a postal ballot.

5. Decision

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

14) The name of the Qualified Independent Person 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

Professor Kenneth Miller, Panel Chair

Miss Kerry Holden

Mr Matt Smith OBE

11 November 2020