Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 2 June 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1305(2023)

3 April 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:

GMB

and

Apcoa Parking (UK) Limited

1. Introduction

1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 1 March 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Apcoa Parking (UK) Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) (Excluding Managers).”^{[footnote 1]} The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd, 1A Heathfield Road, Bromley, BR1 3RN.” The application was received by the CAC on 2 March 2023 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 9 March 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham 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 16 March 2023. The acceptance period was extended to 31 March 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 2 February 2023. The Union stated that the Employer had not responded to the request, however confirmation of receipt was received by email. A copy of the Union’s letter of 2 February 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 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 approximately 40. The Union stated that there were 37 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 23 were members of the Union. 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 that it was willing to provide a membership list and staff petition to the CAC on a confidential basis for a membership and support check to be undertaken.

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because it had been contacted by employees from the Apcoa Parking (Bromley) site with a request for the Union to obtain recognition with the Company. 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 1 March 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 written request for recognition on 2 February 2023. The Employer stated that it did not respond to the written request.

11) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 2 February 2023.^{[footnote 2]} The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, nor did it agree with the proposed bargaining unit.

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.

13) The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application and said that there were 68 employees and it did not understand why there was a discrepancy. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14) In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated “We do not believe there is that level of membership at that site. There are no Union membership deductions being made through Payroll.”

15) 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 “there were no outstanding employee disputes. The management team have a very good working relationship with Employees. This is evidenced by not having any formal grievances in at least the last 6 months.”

16) The Employer answered “N/A” 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.

5. The Union’s comments on the Employer’s response

17) The Union stated that it believed that the figure of 68 workers given by the Employer included workers from a different workplace (Bexleyheath site). The Union said it believed there was a maximum of 40 workers, 37 of which were Civil Enforcement Officers based at Apcoa Parking Limited Bromley Site.

18) The Union said that it had no members who paid their subscription through the Apcoa Parking Limited payroll system. All present members paid by direct debit. The Union added that it was willing to provide the CAC on a confidential basis with a membership list and also a petition signed by workers at the site of the proposed bargaining unit who supported recognition of the Union.

6. The membership and support check

19) 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 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 full names, dates of birth and job roles where available) and a copy of the petition. 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 13 March 2023 from the Case Manager to both parties.

20) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 16 March 2023 and from the Union on 14 March 2023. 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 35 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

22) The list of members supplied by the Union contained 27 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 23, a membership level of 65.71%.

23) The petition supplied by the Union contained 31 names, of which 26 were in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represents 74.29% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 26 names, 20 were members of the Union (57.14% of the proposed bargaining unit) and six were non-members (17.14% of the proposed bargaining unit). The petition consisted of two sheets of A4 paper. Each sheet contained the GMB Union header and footer and was set out as follows:

PETITION IN SUPPORT OF RECOGNITION APCOA PARKING LTD – BROMLEY

GMB is asking your employer to recognise us for ‘collective bargaining.’ We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise this Union for ‘collective bargaining’, please sign the petition.

I support recognition of the GMB to enable them to conduct ‘collective bargaining’ on pay, hours and holidays.

The petition had four columns with “Print Name”, “Job Title”, “Signature” and “Date”. The dates of the entries ranged from 1 February 2023 up to and including 16 February 2023.

24) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 20 March 2023 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by the close of business on 24 March 2023.

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

25) In an e-mail to the CAC, dated 21 March 2023, the Union stated that it was in agreement with the report prepared as a result of the membership and support check carried out, in respect of the proposed bargaining unit.

26) No comments were received from the Employer.

8. Considerations

27) 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.

28) 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 issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

29) 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.

30) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 19 - 24 above) showed that 65.71% 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)

31) 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.

32) The Union relied on its density of union membership as evidence that there was majority support for collective bargaining, which the Employer did not dispute.

33) For the reasons given in paragraph 30 above, the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit stands at 65.71%. 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. The Panel notes that six workers who were not, at the time of the membership and support check, members of the Union also signed the petition. This provides evidential support in this case for the Panel’s general experience that there will be workers who are not members of the Union who would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

34) The Panel has therefore reached the conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, 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.

9. Decision

35) For the reasons given in paragraphs 27 - 34 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr David Coats

3 April 2023

---

1. The request for recognition dated 2 February 2023 was made in relation to “Civil Enforcement Officers, Bromley based: 1A Heathfield Road Bromley BR1 3RN.” There was no reference to “excluding managers”. The Union clarified that it was never the intention to include managers in the proposed bargaining unit and confirmed that there were no Civil Enforcement Officers who were managers. ↩

2. In a later email the Employer confirmed that the request for voluntary recognition was received on 2 February and the Union’s formal application on 1 March 2023, however no supporting documents were received. ↩