Form of Ballot Decision
Updated 13 July 2021
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2021
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-grissan-carrick-limited-2/form-of-ballot
Case Number: TUR1/1216(2021)
07 May 2021
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
Grissan Carrick Limited
1. Introduction
1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 20 March 2021 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Grissan Carrick Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Everyone employed by Grissan Carrick Limited excluding the Site Leader, Maintenance Team Leader and the two Process Team Leaders (the bargaining unit).” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Grangestone Industrial Estate, Ladywell Avenue, Girvan, Ayrshire, Scotland, KA26 9PT.” The application was received by the CAC on 22 March 2021 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application the same day. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 29 March 2021 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 Kenny Miller, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Tom Keeney and Mr Steve Gillan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) By a decision dated 19 April 2021 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. In its response to the Union’s application the Employer agreed that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate bargaining unit. The Panel therefore moved to the next stage in the statutory process.
2. Issues
4) On 19 April 2021, the Panel, not satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that a secret ballot would be held. 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) of the Schedule, before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.
5) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) ended on 2 May 2021. 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) of the Schedule.
3. Unions’ submissions on the form of ballot
6) In an e-mail 25 April 2021 the Union stated its preference for a workplace ballot. The Union maintained that in its experience a workplace ballot would help to increase the turnout and engagement in the ballot. The Union emphasised that its aim was to involve as many workers as possible. The Union said that it did not believe that there was any reason as to why a workplace ballot could not be held within Covid-19 safety parameters as it had experience of running workplace ballots safely during this time in other workplaces.
4. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot
7) In an e-mail dated 26 April 2021 the Employer stated its preference for a postal ballot.
The Employer explained that the site currently had restrictions in place to limit the number of people on site. To ensure a COVID safe environment, since April 2020 access to areas of the plant was restricted to Operators only. The Employer believed that as a result, the attendance on site of the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) could pose an unnecessary additional health risk to the workers safety. There was also a risk to the health of the QIP, which should be taken into consideration.
8) The Employer said that whilst its workers were tested weekly and encouraged to remain at home if they had any COVID symptoms, there was still the possibility that one of the workers may be required to self-isolate as a result of a positive COVID test (or as otherwise required due to contact with an infected person). The Employer considered that there was therefore a greater risk that workers could be absent from site on the day of the ballot, and that given the size of the bargaining unit, this could have a greater impact on the outcome of the ballot. The Employer maintained that a postal ballot would eliminate this risk.
9) The Employer explained further that as the workers at the site operated on a shift pattern, including night shifts, rest days, and blocks of days off, it would be impracticable and unnecessarily expensive to hold a workplace ballot. Some employees may also be on holiday or otherwise absent on the day of the ballot, which would also have an impact on the result of the ballot.
10) Finally, the Employer stated that when the Union had made their previous request for recognition in 2020 an allegation was made that a suspected union member had placed undue pressure on a new employee to join the Union. The Employer said that it therefore had concerns that such pressure could be placed again should the ballot take place on site.
5. Considerations
11) 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.
12) The parties have put forward two different types of ballot for the Panel to consider. The Union have argued for a workplace ballot, whereas the Employer has submitted that the ballot should be a postal ballot.
13) The Panel, having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, has decided that, taking into account the uncertainty caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the appropriate form of ballot in the circumstances would be a postal ballot. In the current climate we feel that this is the most appropriate and safest form of ballot. The Panel has also considered Employer’s submissions on costs, and it is the Panel’s view that given the size of the bargaining unit and the shift patterns covered it would not be cost effective to hold a workplace ballot.
6. Decision
14) The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.
15) The name of the QIP 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 Kenny Miller, Panel Chair
Mr Tom Keeney
Mr Steve Gillan
07 May 2021