Recognition Decision
Updated 23 October 2020
© Crown copyright 2020
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-mears-facilities-management/recognition-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1157/2020
20 July 2020
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
The Parties:
GMB
and
Mears Facilities Management
1. Introduction
1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC, dated 5 February 2020, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Mears Facilities Management (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Cleaning staff and FMA’s across the 6 schools.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “All 6 West Lothian Schools with Mears facilities management.” The application was received by the CAC on 5 February 2020 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 6 February 2020. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC, dated 10 February 2020, 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 Matt Smith OBE and Mrs Maureen Shaw, who was later replaced by Mr Tom Keeney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) The proceedings were stayed until 29 May 2020 in order to allow time for the parties to hold discussions on voluntary recognition. As no agreement was reached the stay was lifted and the statutory process resumed on 2 June 2020.
4) By a decision dated 30 June 2020 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.
2. Issues
5) Paragraph 22 of the Schedule provides that, if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of these qualifying conditions is fulfilled. The three qualifying conditions are:
(i) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;
(ii) the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;
(iii) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.
Paragraph 22(5) provides that “membership evidence” for these purposes is:
(a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or
(b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.
3. The Union’s claim to majority membership and submission it should be recognised without a ballot
6) In a letter dated 30 June 2020 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an e-mail dated 1 July 2020, stated that it did claim to have majority membership within the bargaining unit and therefore submitted that it was seeking recognition without a ballot.
4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s claim and submission it should be recognised without a ballot
7) On 3 July 2020 the CAC copied the Union’s e-mail of 1 July 2020 to the Employer and invited the Employer to make submissions in relation to the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.
8) As the Employer had not responded to the CAC by the stated deadline, the Case Manager contacted the Employer by telephone on 14 July 2020, during which the Employer confirmed that it did not wish to comment on the Union’s claim to majority membership or the qualifying conditions.
5. Considerations
9) The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must declare the Union to be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit unless it decides that any of the three qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. If the Panel considers that any of those specific conditions is fulfilled it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.
10) The membership check issued by the Case Manager on 16 June 2020, as recorded in more detail in paragraphs 21 -24 of the acceptance decision dated 30 June 2020, showed that 78.43% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and is satisfied that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.
11) The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. In this case neither party has submitted evidence that holding a secret ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations. The Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition does not apply.
12) The second condition is that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced and the Panel is satisfied that this condition does not apply.
13) The third condition is that membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced and the Panel is satisfied that this condition does not apply.
6. Declaration of recognition
14) The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “Cleaning staff and FMA’s across the 6 schools”.
Panel
Professor Kenneth Miller, Panel Chair
Mr Matt Smith OBE
Mr Tom Keeney
20 July 2020