Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 1 March 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1294(2022)

17 January 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:

United Road Transport Union

and

Rivus Group

1. Introduction

1) The United Road Transport Union (URTU or the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) on 2 December 2022 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Rivus Group (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Workshop Controllers, Supervisors and Technicians”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 December 2022. The location of the bargaining unit was given as Wilko Maintenance Unit, Roebuck Way, Manton Word, Worksop. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 9 December 2022 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 Ian Hanson. 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 December 2022. The acceptance period was extended to 13 January 2023 and then further to 20 January 2023, to allow the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider these 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 sent a request for recognition to the Employer on 23 August 2022. It stated that no official response had been received. The Union’s letter dated 23 August 2022 was submitted with the application. The Union therefore considered that the voluntary negotiations had failed.

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 estimated at 1,000. The Union stated that there were 12 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 7 were members of the Union. The Union stated that proof of membership could be provided to the CAC on a confidential basis upon request. When asked 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 “58% of the bargaining unit are union members”.

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was that “This covers the vehicle maintenance unit staff”. The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.

9) Finally, the Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence.

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 written request for recognition on 23 August 2022. When asked what its response was, the Employer stated “I acknowledged receipt of the letter on the 23 August (the same day) and explained that I was going on annual leave. We arranged to have a phone call on my return. We had a follow up phone call on the 22 September at 4pm, where I explained to the union that we were in the process of reaching a voluntary agreement with another union and I was therefore unwilling to discuss things further at this time. We scheduled another meeting for the 10 October via Teams which the union failed to attend.”

11) The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 2 December 2022. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union and that it did not agree with the bargaining unit as set out by the Union. The Employer stated “We already recognise 5 trade unions, and I would prefer for one of the unions that we already work with to represent the Colleagues on this site. I am not opposed to working with a trade union.” The Employer stated that it did agree the number of workers within the proposed bargaining unit.

12) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it was very happy to work with Acas on this matter. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13) When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer did not respond.

14) 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 the Employer chose not to respond. When asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer left this blank.

15) When asked if it did consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, the Employer stated, “My view is the workers will work with any union not just specifically URTU and I would prefer that to be one of the unions we already recognise.”

16) Finally, 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 the Employer did not respond.

5. The membership and support check

17) 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 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 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 the workers in the bargaining unit which had been proposed by the Union in its application form, 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 titles (where available). 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 20 December 2022 from the Case Manager to both parties.

18) The information requested was received by the CAC from both the parties on 21 December 2022. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

19) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 12 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 7 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of members of the Union in the proposed bargaining unit was 7, a membership level of 58.33%.

20) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 28 December 2022 and the parties were invited to comment on the results by noon on 4 January 2023.

6. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership check

21) In an e mail to the Case Manager dated 4 January 2023 the Employer stated it had no comments to make on the report.

22) In an email to the Case Manager dated 28 December 2022 the Union stated, “I can confirm I am comfortable with the figures provided by the Company and ourselves.”

7. Considerations

23) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision.

24) 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 paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

8. Paragraph 36(1)(a)

25) In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule the Panel must determine whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. In this case membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 19 above) showed that 58.33% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 19 above, 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)

26) 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. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the level of union membership identified by the membership check is 58.33%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. The Employer has not submitted any contrary evidence nor has the Panel received any contrary evidence from any other source.

27) The Panel considers that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining (58.33%). On the basis of 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.

10. Decision

28) For the reasons given in paragraphs 23-27 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mrs Susan Jordan

Mr Ian Hanson

17 January 2023