Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 3 October 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1330(2023)

4 July 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:

RMT

and

Unipart Rail Limited

1. Introduction

1) RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 31 May 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Unipart Rail Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Engineering Technician, Production Operative, Mechanical Design and Development Engineer, Co-ordinator, Toolmaker, Quality Assurance, Warehouse Operative, Warehouse Administrator, Site Engineer, Storeperson grades employed by Unipart Rail Ltd at the Southport Facility”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 31 May 2023. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 7 June 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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alastair Kelly and Mr Paul Morley. 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 16 June 2023. The acceptance period was then extended to 7 July 2023 to allow time to conduct a membership check and for the parties to comment on the results before the Panel arrived at a decision.

2. Issues

4) The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore, should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5) In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 4 April 2023 and that, in an email received by the Union on 14 April 2023, the Employer requested discussions via Acas which took place on 16 May 2023.

6) When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, “No”. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7) The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was approximately 670 and that approximately 75 of these workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 54 were Union members. Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “Unknown”. When called upon to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated, “Confidential information of paid-up members of the union will be provided upon request”.

8) The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because it covered all union members, and it was an appropriate bargaining unit.

9) Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 31 May 2023.

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

10) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it received the Union’s written request for recognition on 4 April 2023 and it had responded on 14 April 2023. The Employer advised that it was willing to enter into discussions with the Union and also requested that Acas be involved in these discussions.

11) The Employer confirmed that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union. It said it did not agree with the proposed bargaining unit as it was purely a list of job titles of employees who had joined the Union and did not represent a bargaining group. The Employer also stated that terms and conditions of employment of those in the proposed bargaining unit were in no way different to other employees who worked at the site.

12) When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered “Yes”.

13) The Employer stated that it employed a total of 598 permanent workers. Asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application the Employer answered, “No”.

14) When asked to state the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference, the Employer confirmed there was 69 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that it did not recognise the job title “Mechanical Design Engineer” as stated in the definition of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

15) The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

16) The Employer when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, stated “We have had no information on Trade Union Membership until we received the CAC statutory application from RMT. We have not been formally advised by any employees that they have joined the RMT”.

17) When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition the Employer stated “We have not received any direct approach by employees advising that they want to be recognised by the RMT. Furthermore, we have an effective and active employee forum that represents all employees working at the Southport site who work together to resolve any issues, so we were surprised to receive the request for Trade Union recognition”.

18) Finally, the Employer stated it was not aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit. Asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered “N/A”.

5. The check of membership and support

19) To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit including their full names and dates of birth. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 22 June 2023 from the Case Manager to both parties.

20) The information requested from the Employer was received on 22 June 2023 and from the Union on 20 June 2023. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

21) The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 69 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 54 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 48, a membership level of 69.57%. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 22 June 2023 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

22) In its response dated 27 June 2023, the Union stated that the membership check confirmed that 69.57% of its members were in the bargaining unit, therefore more than 10% were paid up union members within the proposed bargaining unit. Given that membership levels were above 50% the Union requested that the Panel accepted its application and granted automatic recognition to the Union.

23) The Employer did not submit any comments on the results of the membership report by the deadline imposed.

7. Considerations

24) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

25) The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 12. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

26) Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 21 above showed that 69.57% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Union 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)

27) Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

28) The Panel notes from the membership check that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (69.57%) are members of the Union. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf. On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Alastair Kelly

Mr Paul Morley

4 July 2023