Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 27 November 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1372(2023)

27 November 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

Serco Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 16 October 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Serco Ltd (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All employees up to and including Supervisor level working on the CCTV Operation on the London Borough of Hounslow Parking Service and Community Safety contracts.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Trimmer Centre (near 29 Walnut Tree Road), Brentford, TW8 0RW. Bridge Road Depot, 173 Pears Rd, Hounslow, London TW3 1SQ. Chiswick Town Hall, Heathfield Terrace, Chiswick, London W4 4JN. Or any other location that Serco Ltd may in future operate from for the purpose of the CCTV Operation on the LB Hounslow Parking Service and Community Safety contracts.” The application was received by the CAC on 16 October 2023 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by way of a letter dated 17 October 2023. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 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 Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Sean Mcllveen and Mr David Coats. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 30 October 2023. The acceptance period was extended to 30 November 2023 in order to allow time for a membership check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving 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 had made a request for recognition to the Employer on 29 September 2023 to which the Employer did not respond. A copy of the Union’s letter of 29 September 2023 was attached to the application.

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 said that it had submitted two previous applications both of which were withdrawn prior to acceptance due to errors on the application form. 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 50,000. The Union stated that there were approximately 20 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that 15 of those were members of the Union. The Union said that the Employer did not agree the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union went on to say that it would be happy to provide evidence of membership on a confidential basis for a check to take place.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was that “all employees within the proposed bargaining unit are working on the same Borough contracts and undertaking similar work which is distinct from the rest of the employer’s workforce. All employees within the proposed bargaining unit enjoy broadly similar terms and conditions of employment and sit under the same management reporting line.” In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “NO”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 16 October 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 had received the Union’s formal written request for recognition on 16 October 2023. The Employer said it did not respond due to prior verbal conversations with union representatives around incorrect addresses on previous applications.

11)       The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 16 October 2023.  The Employer stated that it was in agreement with the bargaining unit “covered by the latest application.” In answer to the question on whether the Employer agreed the proposed bargaining unit the Employer said “Yes.”

12)       The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties. The Employer went on to say, “We are happy if Unite can evidence the level of membership claimed that we don’t need the involvement of ACAS as this point.” The Employer stated that it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13)       In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered, “N/A”. 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 said, “Seeking independent confirmation of the level of membership claimed.”

14)       The employer replied “N/A – not in relation to this specific bargaining unit” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and when asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer stated that it consented to its contact details being provided to Acas.

5. The membership and support check

15)       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, dates of birth and job roles (where available). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 9 November 2023 from the Case Manager to both parties.

16)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 10 November 2023 and from the Union on 13 November 2023. The Panel is satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

17)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 20 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

18)       The list of members supplied by the Union contained 17 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 16, a membership level of 80.00%.

19)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 13 November 2023 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 16 November 2023. Neither the Employer nor the Union chose to comment.

6. Considerations

20)       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 considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

21)       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 11. Furthermore the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

22)       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 proposed bargaining unit. 

23)    The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 15 to 19 above) showed that 80.00% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 16 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

24)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 18 above the Panel has 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)

25)       Under paragraph 36(1) 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.

26)       For the reasons given in paragraph 18 above, the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 80.00%. 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.

27)    On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, 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.

7. Decision

28)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 20-27 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins

Mr Sean McIlveen

Mr David Coats.

27 November 2023