Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 25 September 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1418(2024)

25 September 2024

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:

Community

and

WorldSkills UK

1. Introduction

1)         Community (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 6 August 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by WorldSkills UK (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Executive Office, External Affairs Directorate, Finance Directorate, Operations Directorate, and Standards Directorate”.  The location of the bargaining unit was given as “WorldSkills UK, Third Floor, 35 Wilton Road, London, SW1V 1LW.”  The application was received by the CAC on 6 August 2024 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 5 September 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 Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Rob Lummis and Ms Anna Berry. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 20 August 2024.  The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 25 September 2024.

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 its request for recognition to the Employer on 20 February 2024.  The Employer had responded by letter of 4 March 2024 stating that it was, “not prepared at this stage to accept the request, or to negotiate.”   

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 51. According to the Union, there were 45 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 13 were members of the Union.  When asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said that it had a petition signed by 24 employees.       

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because all of the employees were below the level of the Senior leadership, who included the Chief Executive Officer, Chief of Staff - Company Secretary, Director of External Affairs, Director of Finance, Director of Operations, and Director of Standards. The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.   The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware that 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 6 June 2024.^{[footnote 1]} 

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 20 February 2024.  The Employer said that it had responded by letter dated 4 March 2024.  In this letter the Employer had explained that it believed, “the best approach is for the organisation to continue to consult and negotiate directly with colleagues regarding their employment.” The Employer said that it was therefore, “not prepared at this stage to accept the request, or to negotiate”, and that it was “committed to fostering an environment where employees feel valued and engaged”. 

11)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 6 August 2024.  The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, but that it agreed with the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer added that it did however have concerns as it encompassed the entire staff base (with the exception of the Chief Executive and the Directors), and it included staff groups that were funded in very different ways (and from different sources), but it did not believe that it would be constructive or proportionate to dispute the bargaining unit.

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

13)    The Employer said that it disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application as the number provided was out of date, and that there had been minor changes in the workforce during the intervening period.       

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

15)       When asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer said that it did not have any information about the level of Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit.

16)       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 that it respectfully asked that the CAC convene a hearing so that the following points could be considered:

1) The organisation had an effective and long-standing Staff Council.

2) When union recognition was first proposed, a significant proportion of staff voiced opposition to the idea. Membership of Community was (and still is) relatively low, and a substantial number of staff preferred the mechanism of Staff Council.

3) A number of staff fed-back that they were: i) repeatedly asked to support recognition and sign a petition; ii) asked to justify any reluctance or opposition; and iii) felt undue pressure.

4) Equally, the requests to support recognition were based on incomplete and/or imperfect information about the process and the implications of recognition.

17)       The Employer said that it believed an independent ballot was an important step in establishing whether a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition.

18)       The Employer answered “N/A” when asked both whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, and whether it had received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. The membership and support check

19)       To assist in 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 and of the Union’s petition.  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 dates of birth) and a copy of its petition.  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 21 August 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

20)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 22 August 2024, and from the Employer on 23 August 2024.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

21)      The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 44 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 13 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 13, a membership level of 29.55%. 

22)       The Union’s petition comprised of 2 A4 sheets and contained 27 names/signatures.  The first page was headed “WorldSkills UK”, along with the Union’s logo. Underneath the headings was a table with 5 columns headed: “Name”, “Signature”, “Job Title”, “Workplace/Department”, and “Date”.   The dates on the petition ranged between 4 May 2024 and 10 July 2024.

At the bottom of the second page, it was set out as follows;

“The undersigned support recognition of Community for collective bargaining on pay, hours, holidays and terms and conditions.

• Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (in Northern Ireland, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995), workers have the right to vote for union recognition and that if a majority do so, the employer will be obliged to recognise the union.

• The purpose of the petition is to demonstrate to the Central Arbitration Committee (or Industrial Court of Northern Ireland) that a majority would support recognition.

• Workers would benefit from recognition by setting out the issues over which the employer would be required to negotiate and bring out any particular local issues that have caused anger among the workforce because of lack of recognition.

This data is being collected and held by Community for the purposes of promoting union recognition and membership.  It may be used to support an application to the CAC (Central Arbitration Committee) for statutory recognition”.

23)       The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 25 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 56.82% of the proposed bargaining unit.  Of the 25 signatories, 13 were members of the Union (29.55% of the bargaining unit) and 12 were non-members (27.27% of the bargaining unit). 

24)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 29 August 2024 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by noon on 3 September 2024.

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

25)       In an email to the CAC dated 29 August 2024 the Union stated that the 13 members supplied to the CAC and subsequently verified as being on the employers list made up 29.55% of the 44 in the proposed bargaining unit, which more than satisfied the test at paragraph 36(a) of the Schedule, as members of the union constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  In addition to this, the 25 signatures on the petition who appeared on the Employer’s list constitute 56.82% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, which clearly satisfies the test at paragraph 36(b) of the Schedule.  The Union said that it believed the findings of the report formed a compelling case for its application.

26)       In a letter to the CAC dated 5 September 2024, the Employer said that it did not wish to comment on the first test, as the result of the check appeared to demonstrate that there were 13 members of the Union.

27)       In regard to the second test, the Employer reiterated the following points, that it had previously raised in paragraph 16 above, stating why it did it did not believe that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition:

1) The organisation had an effective and long-standing Staff Council.

2) When union recognition was first proposed, a significant proportion of staff voiced opposition to the idea. Membership of Community was (and still is) relatively low, and a substantial number of staff preferred the mechanism of Staff Council.

3) A number of staff fed-back that they were: i) repeatedly asked to support recognition and sign a petition; iii) asked to justify any reluctance or opposition; and iii) felt undue pressure.

4) Equally, the requests to support recognition were based on incomplete and/or imperfect information about the process and the implications of recognition.

7. Considerations

28)       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.

29)       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 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.   

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

30)       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. 

31)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 19 – 21 above) showed that 29.55% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 20 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached 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.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

32)       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.

33)       For the reasons given in paragraph 31 above the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 29.55%. 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. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case.

34)       As well as establishing that 29.55% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were union members, the Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of workers provided by the Employer indicated that 25 of the 27 petition signatories were identifiable as workers within the bargaining unit, a support level of 56.82%. Of those there were 13 union members (29.55%) and 12 were non-members in the bargaining unit (27.27%).   The Panel considers that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining (29.55%), as would non-union members who signed the petition (27.27%), giving a total of 56.82% support for recognition. 

35)       The Panel notes the Employer’s comments concerning the petition but does not consider that the reasons given for this submission, which were not supported by documentation from any worker within the bargaining unit opposing recognition, constitute evidence that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would not favour recognition of the Union. 

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

8. Decision

37)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 29 - 36 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Rob Lummis

Ms Anna Berry

25 September 2024              

---

1. See however paragraph 11. ↩