Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 13 July 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1339(2023)

13 July 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

CTD Tiles Limited

1. Introduction

1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 19 June 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by CTD Tiles Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all the permanent staff employed at the Newcastle Branch 9950.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “CTD Newcastle Branch 9950, 351 Shields Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2UD.” The application was received by the CAC on 19 June 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 30 June 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 Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as members, Susan Jordan and Matt Smith. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

2. Issues

3) 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

4) In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer on 28 March 2023. The Union stated that the Employer responded asking for union member names. The Union said on 24 April 2023 a further email was sent to the Employer and no response was received. A copy of the Union’s two emails of 28 March 2023, the email dated 24 April and the Employer’s response dated 28 March 2023 was attached to the application.

5) 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, “n/a.” 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.

6) The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 46. The Union stated that there were 46 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 19 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 said it had petitions signed by over 50% of the workers.

7) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because “membership covers every department of the branch.” 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.

8) 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 19 June 2023, and that it consented to its contact details being provided to Acas.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

9) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 28 March 2023. The Employer stated that it did not respond.

10) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 19 June 2023. 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.

11) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties. The Employer stated that it did agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

12) When asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer did not provide an answer.

13) 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, “I am told a petition was done with support.” 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 said “NO.” When asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer responded “N/a.”

5. Considerations

14) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 above are satisfied. Paragraph 15(2)(a) requires the CAC to decide whether the request for recognition to which the application relates is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9.

15) Paragraph 1 of Schedule A1 states that a trade union seeking recognition to be entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers may make a request in accordance with this Part (Part I) of the Schedule. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule states that paragraphs 5 to 9 apply to the request.

16) Paragraph 8 of the Schedule provides:

8) The request is not valid unless it-

(a) is in writing,

(b) identifies the union or unions and the bargaining unit, and

(c) states that it is made under this Schedule.

17) In this case the email relied upon by the Union as its formal request for recognition reads as follows:

“I’m currently the GMB Trade Union Officer with responsibility for members at CTD Newcastle Branch 9950. I have been provided with your name as I understand you are the HR Director within the Company. In relation to the below email if this needs to be forwarded to someone else within CTD I would be most grateful if you could let me know and apologise if I have taken up any of your time unnecessarily.

I am writing to seek a meeting with CTD in order to discuss recognition for GMB Trade Union at CTD Newcastle Branch 9950. We have a strong membership on the site and would like to reach a mutual agreement on bargaining rights for members.

I look forward to hearing from you and hopefully meeting soon.”

18) The Employer responded on 28 March 2023 prompting a further email from the Union that same day. On 24 April 2023 the Union emailed the Employer again this time stating:

“Following my email below I didn’t receive any response and thought I’d email you again to inform you that GMB wish to seek a recognition agreement with CTD covering the bargaining unit of all the staff employed at the CTD Newcastle Branch – branch number 9950.

I originally emailed you on 28 March 2023, nearly a month ago and having heard nothing since my last response to you below, I assume the Employer does not wish to engage in any discussions over recognition. If this is the case, we can submit our application to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) in line with their procedure. However, if you do wish to discuss agreeing a voluntary recognition agreement, I would be grateful if you could let me know by Wednesday this week.”

19) These emails, whilst in writing and identifying the union and the bargaining unit, so satisfying the requirements under paragraph 8(a) and (b) of the Schedule, fails to satisfy the requirement in paragraph 8(c). In order for the request to be a valid request it must also state that it is made under Schedule A1. This the Union failed to do. Accordingly, the Panel finds that it is not a valid request.

6. Decision

20) For the reasons given above, the Panel concludes that the request is not a valid request for recognition in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Schedule and so the application cannot be accepted by the CAC.

21) Having arrived at the decision that the request is not a valid request, the Panel did not go on to consider the other matters referred to in paragraph 3 above, that is whether the application was made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 or whether it was admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42.

Panel

Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Susan Jordan

Matt Smith.

13 July 2023