Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 31 March 2022

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1240(2021)

23 February 2022

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

Nicholsons Sealing Technologies Ltd

1. Introduction

1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 22 November 2021 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Nicholsons Sealing Technologies Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All operators up to but excluding team leaders”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as Amos Drive, Greencroft Industrial Park, Stanley, County Durham, DH9 7YE. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 22 November 2021. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 3 December 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 Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Gillian Woodcock and Ms Janice Beards. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3) By a decision dated 23 December 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 31 January 2022, 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 its views on the form the ballot should take.

5) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) ended on 26 January 2022. 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. Summary of the Union’s application

6) In an e-mail dated 3 February 2022 the Union stated its preference for a postal ballot. The Union maintained that in its experience, it had grave concerns around an internal/workplace ballot. The Union attached to its email a timeline of concerns of inappropriate behaviour that had occurred when carrying out a previous onsite ballot hence why its preference was for a postal ballot.

4. Summary of the Employer’s application

7) In a letter dated 7 February 2022 the Employer stated its preference for a workplace ballot. The Employer proposed that if the ballot was to proceed then a ballot on site conducted on a designated day would be the most appropriate. The Employer would ensure that voting could be done in secret by providing a polling booth facility. The Employer stated it believed that the whole of the bargaining unit worked on the site each day and it did not have any employees currently working from home who were a part of this bargaining unit. The Employer stated it would be considerably more convenient and easier for employees if the ballot was conducted in this way and would be conducive to a higher turnout as a result. The Employer believed this in turn would enable the fullest participation and deliver an outcome most representative for the whole bargaining unit. The Employer noted that a workplace ballot would be easier to organise and less expensive than a postal ballot. The Employer finally stated they would allow postal votes as an option for any employees who may want to vote in this way or who may be on long-term sick or maternity leave so as to ensure that they are able to vote in the event if employees are unable to make it on-site.

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 or workplaces;

(b) costs and practicality;

(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

9) Before arriving at its decision, the Panel directed that the Case Manager obtain quotations for the two forms of ballot put forward by the parties, namely (a) a wholly postal ballot, (b) a single site workplace ballot at the Employer’s site with a postal element for known absentees on the day of the workplace ballot. The Case Manager duly obtained the necessary quotations and reported back to the Panel.

10) The Panel is mindful that the Union had argued that there was likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace and this factor did not have any bearing on the decision reached by the Panel.

11) The Panel, having carefully considered each of the two options, was of the view that the last option (b) a single site workplace ballot at the Employer’s site with a postal element for known absentees on the day of the workplace ballot, was not a practicable option due to the high costings involved.

12) The Panel finds the difference in cost between the two options for the ballot format was significantly influential in arriving at a decision. The lowest quote for a wholly postal ballot was almost three times lower than the lowest quote for a workplace ballot. The Panel finds this persuasive.

13) Having considered the points raised by the parties, the Panel also noted the Employer’s submissions on costs. The Employer had stated it would be less expensive to hold a workplace ballot than a postal ballot. The Panel having seen the quotations for the two forms of ballot would reaffirm that this was not the case and that it is significantly more expensive to conduct a workplace ballot than to hold a postal 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

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Ms Gillian Woodcock

Ms Janice Beards

23 February 2022