Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 1 February 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1376(2023)

  1 February 2024

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

Prospect

and

London Ashford Airport Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 15 November 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by London Ashford Airport Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Employees in the airport’s Fire & Rescue Department” which was located at Lydd Airport, Romney Marsh, Kent, TN29 9QL. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 15 November 2023.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 23 November 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 Chair established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Sean McIlveen and Ms Claire Sullivan.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         By its written decision dated 7 December 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.

4)         On 7 December 2023 the Employer was asked to supply the CAC and the Union with the information specified in paragraph 18A(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule)  namely (a) a list of the categories of worker in the proposed bargaining unit, (b) a list of the workplaces at which the workers in the proposed bargaining unit work, and (c) the number of workers the employer reasonably believes to be in each category at each workplace.  In an email dated 18 December 2023, the Union stated that it had not been supplied with this information by the Employer as required by the Schedule and requested that the CAC move immediately to determine whether its proposed bargaining unit was appropriate.  The Panel Chair, having considered the contents of the Union’s email, directed that the Employer be asked for its views on the matter before the Panel considered the Union’s request to invoke paragraph 18(3). The Employer was asked on 20 December 2023 if it wished to make representations to the Panel as to why the negotiation period should not be terminated, by no later than noon on 28 December 2023. The Union’s email dated 18 December 2023, was copied to the Employer. No response was received from the Employer.  

5)         On 29 December 2023 the Panel directed that the Case Manager inform the parties that it had formed the opinion that the Employer had failed to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph 18A in that it failed to provide the specified information direct to the Union within the timeframe set by paragraph 18A(2). Having made this finding, the Panel proceeded under paragraph 19 of the Schedule to determine whether the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate. Notice was given that a hearing would be held on 6 February 2024 in London.  To assist in this determination the parties were requested to make written submissions by noon on 23 January 2024.

6)         However, on 22 January 2024 the parties notified the CAC that they had reached an agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit and this was “Employees in the airport’s Fire & Rescue Department”. This bargaining unit comprised the same workers as that originally proposed by the Union in its application.

2. Issues

7)         Paragraph 22 of the Schedule provides that, if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies.  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.

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

8)         In a letter dated 23 January 2024 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 a letter dated 23 January 2024, stated “…The Union’s membership position was verified by a CAC membership check issued on 4 December and there has been no change subsequently. It is not evident that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. We therefore submit that Prospect should be granted recognition without a ballot. I hope that this will assist the Panel reach a decision. Needless to say, we would be happy to attend a hearing, as required”.

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

9)         On 23 January 2024 the CAC copied the Union’s letter of the same date 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.

10)       The Employer responded by way of an email dated 26 January 2024 stating, “Our client has no knowledge of whether 6 of the 8 employees engaged in the bargaining unit are members of Prospect. However, our client understands anecdotally that this is the case. Despite this, our client does not consider that a ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations”.

5. Considerations

11)       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. 

12)       The membership and support check conducted on 4 December 2023 had shown the Employer listing a total of eight workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained six names.  According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was six, a membership level of 75.00%.  The Panel accepts that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

13)       The Panel has carefully considered 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)

14)       The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. 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)

15)       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 CAC has no such evidence, and this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (c)

16)       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

17)       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 “Employees in the airport’s Fire & Rescue Department”.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Sean McIlveen

Ms Claire Sullivan

1 February 2024