Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 17 July 2019

Case Number: TUR1/1088/2019

01 May 2019

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

International Baccalaureate Organization (UK) Ltd

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 29 January 2019 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by International Baccalaureate Organization (UK) Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All employees, excluding executives and directors, based at the IB Global Centre, Cardiff CF23 8GL”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 30 January 2019. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 4 February 2019 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 Mr. Barry Clarke, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr. Nicholas Caton and Mr. Paul Noon OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Linda Lehan.

3) By a decision dated 4 March 2019, 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.

4) In an e-mail from the Union dated 18 April 2019 received by the CAC the Union confirmed that it was willing to accept the proposed bargaining unit put forward by the Employer being “All Employees, excluding Executives, Directors and Heads of Department based at the IB Global Centre, Cardiff CF23 8GL”.

5) The Case Manager sought clarification from the Union and the Employer as to whether the agreed bargaining unit differed to that originally proposed by the Union in its formal request for recognition and subsequently in its application to the CAC. In correspondence received from both parties it was confirmed that the agreed bargaining unit differed to that originally proposed by the Union in that the Heads of Department were excluded.

2. Issues

6) Having decided that the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union in its application, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. The tests that the Panel must consider under these paragraphs are:-

• is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 44) • is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 45(a)) • are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition? (paragraph 45(b)) • is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 46) • has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? (paragraphs 47 to 49)

In a letter dated 27 April 2019 the Case Manager invited each party to make submissions on these points for consideration by the Panel.

3. Views of the Union

7) In an email letter dated 30 April 2019 the Union stated that it did not believe that there was an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit. The Union stated that it was not aware of any competing application from another union that covered any worker in the new bargaining unit and there had not been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit. The Union submitted that there was 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit and that the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition.

4. Views of the Employer

8) In an email dated 29 April 2019 the Employer confirmed that there was no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit, there was not a competing application from another union that covered any workers in the new bargaining unit and there had not been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit. The Employer confirmed that it agreed that the Union had 10% membership and that the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition.

5. Considerations

9) The Panel is required to determine whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has taken into account the submissions of both parties and all the other evidence before it. On the evidence available, the Panel is satisfied that there is no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the agreed bargaining unit; that there is no competing application from another union; and that there has been no previous application in respect of the agreed bargaining unit. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the validity criteria contained in paragraph 45(a) and paragraph 45(b) are met.

6. Paragraph 45(a)

10) Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit.

11) All that has changed in the last two months since the previous membership and support check was conducted at the acceptance stage is that the bargaining unit has been marginally reduced in size shedding some 6 workers out of a bargaining unit of approximately 250. At the acceptance stage the membership stood at 43.20% and neither party is disputing that the 10% has not been met. The Panel, basing its decision on the evidence before it, finds that this test is satisfied.

7. Paragraph 45(b)

12) Under paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule, an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

13) Neither party is contending that this test has not been met and as stated in our acceptance decision dated 4 March 2019 the Union’s petition was signed by 72.40% of the workers which provides a legitimate indicator as to likely support for recognition of the Union for collective bargaining purposes. 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 agreed 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 45(b) of the Schedule.

8. Decision

14) The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC must proceed with the application.

Panel

Mr Barry Clarke, Panel Chair

Mr Nicholas Caton

Mr Paul Noon OBE

01 May 2019