Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 14 September 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1362(2023)

14 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:

Unite the Union

and

Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Limited

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 22 August 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Bargaining Unit – Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Limited, grades; Production, Instrument, Mechanical, Electrical, Safety, Supervisors and Technicians. Control Room Operators. Site Supervisor/Site Lifting Focal Points. Work Coordinators. Area Authorities. Responsible Electrical Persons. Principal Production and Fire and Gas Technicians. Process Control Specialists. Rotating Equipment Specialists. All working in the UK Continental Shelf”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 22 August 2023. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 30 August 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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3) The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 6 September 2023. The acceptance period was then extended to 27 September 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 31 March 2023 by way of a letter requesting that the Employer recognise the Union to conduct collective bargaining. The Employer in a letter dated 24 April 2023 rejected the voluntary recognition request but offered to have meetings with the Union to discuss issues. A meeting was held on 16 May 2023, where the Employer once again confirmed its rejection of a voluntary recognition.

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 not 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 376 and that 298 of these workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 182 were Union members. When asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”. 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, “Over 300% growth in union membership since 31 December 2022. Survey of members closed on 2 August 2023 -100% support Unite recognition, on 83% return”.

8) The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because it had “All offshore Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Limited grades, up to management levels”.

9) When asked whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer the Union answered “No”.

10) 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 22 August 2023.

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

11) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it received the Union’s written request for recognition on 31 March 2023. The Employer stated, “The request for recognition was rejected as per the attached letter dated 24/4/23”.

12) 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. The Employer then set out its objections to the proposed bargaining unit stating “Insofar as the proposed bargaining unit is to be understood to consist of all Repsol Sinopec Resource UK Limited (“the Company”) offshore roles other than those encompassing senior/management roles as set out in the attached spreadsheet then this is not disputed. It is noted that the description of the proposed bargaining unit in paragraph 14 of the application does not clearly identify the roles proposed to be included within the bargaining unit”.

13) When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer stated “No”.

14) The Employer stated that it employed a total of 861 employees, and when 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”.

15) When asked to state the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference, the Employer stated “UNITE has stated that there are 298 workers within the proposed bargaining unit which they describe at paragraph 14 and paragraph 15 of the application. The Company identifies 366 workers falling with the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the attached spreadsheet”.

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

17) The Employer, when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, stated “UNITE has asserted that there are 182 workers within the proposed bargaining unit who are members, however it is submitted that this figure requires to be fully verified. It is submitted that it needs to be established whether the 182 individuals relied upon are Company workers or a mix of Company workers and contractors, noting that the Company has a mix of its own employees and contractors in the roles identified as being part of the proposed bargaining unit. Contractors could include agency workers, professional services companies, employees of managed serviced organisations etc. The Company currently engages 134 contractors across the roles identified within the proposed bargaining unit. It is requested that an independent check of numbers and membership levels is undertaken”.

18) 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 “Strong or widespread support for recognition has not been identified by the Company. Indications from the Company’s HR team’s recent engagement with the Company’s offshore worker population is that the interest in recognition is focused around a minority of its offshore assets. The Company believes it already has effective mechanisms for direct engagement with its offshore workforce, including via both its management and HR teams”.

19) Finally, the Employer stated “No previous application has been made” in answer to if it was 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, “No other applications have been received”.

5. The check of membership and support

20) 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 are 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 independent checks of the level of union membership in the proposed bargaining unit and the number of workers in that unit who had signed the Union’s petition in support of recognition. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the full 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 the full names and dates of birth of the paid-up union members within that unit and a copy of the petition. The Employer was reminded by the CAC to only submit the details of workers that worked off-shore in accordance with the definition of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit i.e., workers employed at Flotta should be excluded as they were on-shore workers. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and the petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter from the Case Manager to both parties dated 1 September 2023

21) The information requested from the Union and Employer was received on 6 September 2023. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

22) The Union also provided the results of a survey by way of a pie chart headed “I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays.” It stated that there were 143 positive responses. However, no information was provided that would allow for any checks to be undertaken in respect of these results.

23) The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 303 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 202 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 183, a membership level of 60.60%.

24) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 7 September 2023 and the parties were invited to comment on the results by noon on 12 September 2023.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

25) The Union in its comments on the Case Manager’s report dated 12 September 2023, stated “I have no comments to add to the report. I am content that based on the information provided the membership has been carried out correctly”.

26) The Employer in its comments on the Case Manager’s report dated 12 September 2023 stated that “It is noted that on the basis of the information provided by UNITE the 10% test in paragraph 36(1)(a) of Schedule A1 is clearly met. With respect to the test in paragraph 36(b) it is noted that in respect of the survey results provided by UNITE no information was provided that would allow for checks to be carried out to verify these results. It is acknowledged that, where majority membership within the bargaining unit appears to be established, the CAC is likely to infer that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit will be likely to favour recognition and the Company makes no further submission on this point for the purposes of the admissibility test. However, our client reserves its right to make further submissions relating to the issue of membership should the application be accepted, and in particular as to the question of whether a ballot should still be arranged”.

7. Considerations

27) 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.

28) 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.

8. Paragraph 36(1)(a)

29) 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 23 above showed that 60.60% 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.

9. Paragraph 36(1)(b)

30) 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.

31) For the reasons given in paragraph 23 above the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 60.60%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case.

32) On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel considers that it is likely that union members would support recognition of the Union and, for this reason, this test is met.

10. Decision

33) 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 Alistair Paton

Mr Matt Smith OBE

14 September 2023