Form of Ballot Decision
Updated 27 September 2019
© Crown copyright 2019
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-gmb-grant-westfield-ltd-2/form-of-ballot-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1102(2019)
30 July 2019
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT
The Parties:
GMB
and
Grant Westfield Ltd
1. Introduction
1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 12 April 2019 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Grant Westfield Ltd (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Hourly paid staff group, including but not limited to Machine Operatives, Production Labourers, Forklift Truck Drivers, Dispatch/Distribution Operatives, HGV Drivers and Merchandising Team.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Westfield Avenue, Edinburgh, EH11 2QH”. The application was received by the CAC on 12 April 2019 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 15 April 2019. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 17 April 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 Professor Kenneth Miller, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) By a decision dated 17 May 2019 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. On 24 June 2019, the Employer wrote to the CAC confirming that it agreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit as stated in its application. As the agreed bargaining unit was the same as that proposed by the Union in its application, the Panel moved to the next stage in the statutory process.
2. Issues
4) On 15 July 2019, the Panel, satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot.
5) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 26 July 2019. The CAC was not notified by the Union or by both parties jointly that they did not want the ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2). The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.
3. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot
6) By a letter to the Case Manager dated 19 July 2019 the Employer stated that it believed a workplace ballot would provide workers with a “practical and simple approach to voting.” The Employer submitted that all workers within the bargaining unit were based at a single location and would be available on a single day to vote, taking into account the differing shift patterns. The Employer considered that this would remove any personal administration burden on the individual workers to vote in their own time.
4. Union’s submissions on the form of ballot
7) By an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 19 July 2019 the Union requested that a postal ballot be held. The Union stated that it believed the Employer’s “apparent aversion to collective bargaining”, previous actions taken by the Employer “to discourage union participation amongst the workforce”, and a “lack of confidence” expressed by both members and non-members concerning the Employer’s willingness to consult on terms and conditions, suggested that that a postal ballot would ensure that workers could cast their vote “without observation and free of any concern that their participation will impact negatively on their prospects.”
5. Considerations
8) When determining the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:
(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace; (b) costs and practicality; (c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.
9) The parties have put forward two different types of ballot for the Panel to consider. The Employer has argued for a workplace ballot whereas the Union has submitted that the ballot should be a postal ballot.
10) The Panel, having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, has decided that, on the grounds of cost and practicality, the appropriate form of ballot in the circumstances would be a postal ballot. It is the Panel’s view that it would not be cost effective to conduct a workplace ballot given the relatively small size of the determined bargaining unit, which currently stands at 41 workers.
6. Decision
11) The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.
12) The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.
Panel
Professor Kenneth Miller, Panel Chair
Mr Alistair Paton
Mr Matt Smith
30 July 2019