Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 20 April 2022

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1227/2021

04 October 2021

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

Kingdom Services Group Ltd

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application dated 22 July 2021 to the CAC that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Kingdom Services Group Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit described as “All Security Officers and Security Supervisors employed by Kingdom Services Group Limited based at Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, London Road, Reading, RG1 5AN”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 22 July 2021. The Employer did not submit a response to the Union’s 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 Mrs Sarah Havlin, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr David Cadger and Mr Ian Hanson. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3) By a decision dated 17 August 2021 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 7 September 2021 the parties agreed that the appropriate bargaining unit in this matter was that originally proposed by the Union but with the revised wording, “All hourly paid Security Officers and Security Supervisors employed by Kingdom Services Group Ltd based at Royal Berkshire NHS foundation trust, Craven Road, Reading RG1 5AN.” 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.

2. Issues

4) 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. 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.

5) In a letter dated 8 September 2021 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 8 September 2021, claimed to have majority membership, stating that it believed it was the only union in Kingdom RBH trust and that there were 20 union members in the bargaining unit which consisted of approximately 22 workers.

6) On 14 September 2021 the CAC copied the Union’s e-mail of 8 September 2021 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 the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.

7) In an e-mail dated 22 September 2021 the Employer confirmed that it did not wish to make any submissions on the Union’s claim to majority membership.

3. Considerations

8) The Act 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.

9) In this case, the Union had stated that of the 22 workers in the proposed bargaining unit 20 were members of the Union. The Employer did not seek to challenge the Union’s position that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

10) 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.

11) The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. The Panel has considered the submissions put forward by the Employer and has concluded that it is not satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. No evidence has been put before the Panel to show how industrial relations would be detrimentally affected if it were to award recognition without holding a ballot. The Panel has therefore concluded that this condition has not been satisfied.

12) 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. No such evidence has been produced and the Panel has therefore concluded that this condition has not been satisfied.

13) 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 the Panel has therefore concluded that this condition has not been satisfied.

4. Declaration of recognition

14) 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 “All hourly paid Security Officers and Security Supervisors employed by Kingdom Services Group Ltd based at Royal Berkshire NHS foundation trust, Craven Road, Reading RG1 5AN.”

5. Panel

Mrs Sarah Havlin, Panel Chair

Mr David Cadger

Mr Ian Hanson

04 October 2021