Form of Ballot Decision
Updated 12 March 2024
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-urtu-industrial-chemicals-ltd/form-of-ballot-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1385(2024)
12 March 2024
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT
The Parties:
United Road Transport Union
and
Industrial Chemicals Limited
1. Introduction
1) The United Road Transport Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) on 25 January 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Industrial Chemicals Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “The HGV drivers based at Industrial Chemicals Widnes” at Industrial Chemicals, Bowman Works, Gorsey Lane, Widnes WA8 0YZ. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 25 January 2024. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 31 January 2024 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 Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs Susan Jordan, and Mr Paul Morley. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.
3) By a decision dated 15 February 2024 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. In an email dated 26 February 2024 the Employer confirmed that they agreed to the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union in its application as “The HGV drivers based at Industrial Chemicals Widnes.”
2. Issues
4) On 26 February 2024, the Panel, satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form of the ballot.
5) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 8 March 2024. The parties did not notify the CAC under paragraph 24(2) that they did not want a ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2).
3. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot
6) By email to the Case Manager dated 7 March 2024 the Employer stated “We would like to make representation that the ballot should be conducted by postal vote. The reasoning for this is that as the bargaining unit in question is HGV Class 1 drivers there are no specified times/days that all individuals within this proposed bargaining unit are or will be in the office to participate in a workplace ballot, therefore the most logical/reasonable approach to this would be a postal vote”.
4. Union’s submissions on the form of ballot
7) By an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 6 March 2024 the Union stated, “Since we only have a handful of members, can we go with a postal ballot please”.
5. Considerations
8) When determining the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:
(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;
(b) costs and practicality;
(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.
9) The Employer and Union both submitted that the ballot should be a postal ballot.
10) The Panel, having considered the parties’ submissions, has decided that, on the grounds of cost and practicality, the appropriate form of ballot in the circumstances would be a postal ballot. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the small size of the bargaining unit and that as the workers are HGV drivers who would not reliably attend the workplace at any particular time or times, a workplace ballot would be less practicable than a ballot held by post.
6. Decision
11) The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.
12) The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.
Panel
Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair
Mrs Susan Jordan
Mr Paul Morley
12 March 2024