Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 25 September 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1357(2023)

25 September 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:

The National Education Union (NEU) & The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT)

and

Northease Manor School

1. Introduction

1) The National Education Union (NEU) and National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) (the Unions) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) on 16 August 2023 that they should be recognised for collective bargaining by Northease Manor School (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Teachers employed at Northease Manor School (excluding the Headteacher)”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 16 August 2023. Despite further communication from the CAC, as described below, the Employer has not submitted a response to the application.

2) In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Roger Roberts and Mr Paul Noon OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 31 August 2023. The period was extended until 21 September 2023 to allow time for the Employer to lodge a response to the application and for the Panel to consider all the evidence before reaching a decision.

2. Issues

4) The Panel is required by the Act to decide whether the Unions’ application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 8; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore, should be accepted.

3. The Unions’ application

5) In their application to the CAC the Unions stated that the Employer was informed of the existence of a voluntary recognition agreement in June 2023. The Employer was provided with an undated copy of the agreement but rejected its legitimacy and authenticity and refused to enter into discussions about recognition. The Unions made a formal written request to the Employer for a new voluntary recognition agreement on 24 July 2023, giving notice of their intention to apply to the CAC if no agreement was forthcoming.

6) The Unions stated that the Employer employed 53 workers. They estimated that there were 22 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and stated that all of those 22 workers were members of the Unions. Asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Unions stated that “workers in the bargaining unit (teachers) (had) signed a petition confirming they wished to have the NEU and NASUWT recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining”. The Unions explained that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was that the teachers were a discrete group of workers who made up a significant part of the Unions’ membership.

4. The Employer’s response

7) The CAC sent a copy of the Unions’ application and a response form to the Employer on 16 August 2023. The same day, the Employer emailed the CAC stating “I would refer you to my previous emails in which I confirmed that the governors would consider an application from you but that we would not be meeting until the new school year. Your application will be considered at the next full governing body meeting which is on 29th November 2023”. It appeared that the Employer had assumed the CAC’s email dated 16 August 2023 had come from the Unions and not the CAC.

8) On 17 August 2023 the CAC emailed the Employer requiring a response and explaining that it was the CAC that was inviting the response and not the Unions. A further email dated 22 August 2023 was then received from the Employer stating “I reiterate my previous comments. The governors would be pleased to review your request on our next full governing body meeting agenda, which is late November”.

9) Once again the CAC Case Manager emailed the Employer to explain that it was the CAC calling for a response rather than the Unions, and the Employer was asked to complete the response form and to return it by 23 August 2023. However, no further response was received from the Employer. The Panel Chair, having considered the lack of any response from the Employer and being conscious that it was the school summer holiday period, directed that the acceptance period be extended until 21 September 2023 and the Employer given until 15 September 2023 to lodge a response to the Unions’ application. Accordingly, the CAC wrote to the Employer on 29 August 2023 setting out clearly the revised dates for its response and the acceptance period. The CAC in its letter also set out the chronology of the attempts made by the CAC to elicit a response, including messages left on the Employer’s voice mail offering assistance with the procedure and inviting it to contact the Case Manager. It was made clear to the Employer the importance of completing the CAC’s questionnaire by the close of business on 15 September 2023 and that failure to do so would mean that the Panel would proceed to make its decision on the basis of the evidence available, namely the Unions’ application and supporting documents.

10) No response was received from the Employer by 15 September 2023. A further reminder email was sent to the Employer on 18 September 2023 but there was still no response from the Employer. The Panel therefore proceeded to deal with the application in the absence of a response from the Employer.

5. Considerations

11) In deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision are satisfied. In the absence of any information or arguments from the Employer, the Panel had to apply the tests on the basis of the information and evidence from the Unions.

12) The Panel is satisfied that, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Unions made a valid request to the Employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule. It is also satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 and was made in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Schedule.

13) The remaining issue is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met. In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Schedule, the Panel must determine whether members of the Unions constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Unions’ proposed bargaining unit, and whether a majority of the workers constituting the Unions’ proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Unions as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

14) In their application to the CAC, the Unions stated that there were 22 members in a proposed bargaining unit of 22 workers. The Panel was satisfied that, on the basis of the evidence available and with the Employer refusing to engage with the statutory process, there were 22 members out of 22 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. This gives the Unions membership at 100.00% of the proposed bargaining unit. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the level of union membership in the bargaining unit does 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)

15) The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the level of union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Unions as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

6. Decision

16) For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr Roger Roberts

Mr Paul Noon OBE

25 September 2023