Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 14 October 2019

Case Number: TUR1/1105/(2019)

11 October 2019

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

GMB

and

Shred-It Limited

1. Introduction

1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 30 April 2019 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Shred-It Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All permanent hourly paid staff (Balers, Customer Service Representatives and Customer Service Representative Helpers) up to and excluding managers”. The location of the bargaining unit stated in the application was “16e Follingsby Close, Follingsby Park, Gateshead NE10 8YG”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 1 May 2019. The Employer submitted a response dated 7 May 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 Chairman of the CAC established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Kenny Miller as chair of the Panel and, as Members Mrs Maureen Chambers and Ms Virginia Branney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan who for the purpose of this decision was replaced with Ms Kate Norgate.

3) By its decision dated 3 July 2019, the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The CAC then informed the parties that in accordance with the statutory procedures, they had a 20 day negotiation period in which to try to reach an agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit and that the 20 days ended on 31 July 2019 (subject to the period being extended or shortened). The parties were also informed that if such an agreement could not be reached by the end of that period, it would then be for the CAC to decide if the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was appropriate.

4) After acceptance of the application, in its letter of 8 July 2019, the Employer provided the specified information relating to the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 18(A) of the Schedule. The Employer informed that there were 21 Customer Service Representatives, 1 CSR Helper, and 3 Balers, a total of 25 workers based at the Gateshead location with one pending resignation of a Baler which would reduce the total number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit to 24.

5) In correspondence to the CAC dated 26 and 29 July 2019, the parties informed the Panel that following direct discussions, no agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit had been reached. By letter to the parties dated 29 July 2019, the parties were duly notified by the CAC that in accordance with paragraph 18(3) of the Schedule, the Panel had decided to end the negotiation period as it had concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the parties would reach an agreement by the end of the 20 day negotiation period.

6) Subsequently, by the CAC’s letter dated 16 August 2019, the parties were invited to a hearing that would be held to assist the Panel with its duty to determine the appropriate bargaining unit. The parties’ written submissions were provided and exchanged in advance of the hearing date. The hearing was held on 19 September 2019 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. The Panel’s initial determination period expired on 12 August 2019. However the Panel, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, has extended the determination period to 27 September 2019 in order to allow time for: the hearing to take place; for all the evidence provided by the parties to be considered before arriving at a decision and to finalise its written decision.

2. Issues for consideration by the Panel

7) The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule to the Act (the Schedule), to decide whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. Paragraph 19B(1) and (2) states that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need. The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “[i]n exercising functions under this Schedule in any particular case the CAC must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying other provisions of this Schedule in the case concerned.”

8) A summary of the views of each party relating to the above provisions as expressed in their written submissions and as amplified at the hearing follow.

3. Summary of the Union’s submissions

9) The Union contended that the bargaining unit as proposed by it in its application to the CAC was an appropriate bargaining unit. The Union had submitted its application to the CAC and proposed the bargaining unit as identified in its application for two main reasons. Firstly, it was this group of workers who had approached the GMB Union to gain recognition. The Union did not have members in any other job roles at this workplace. The Union always had members at this workplace and it had not actively gone out to recruit but from December 2018 onwards there was a significant increase in membership here.

10) Secondly, these workers shared the same terms and conditions of employment. These job roles were a clear and distinct group with clear boundaries and therefore they constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.

11) The Union explained that the job roles within the “Team Leads” category were excluded from its proposed bargaining unit because the Union did not believe it could effectively bargain and negotiate with these workers on three grounds. Firstly none of these workers were Union members. They had never shown an interest other than to attempt to dissuade the Union members away from the recognition process and had made their views clear to the Union members. The Union believed it would be counterproductive and prohibit constructive collective bargaining to include workers in the Team Lead job roles within the appropriate bargaining unit. The workers in Team Lead job roles had not joined the GMB Union which in the Union’s view showed that they expressly did not wish to be involved in the recognition process.

12) Secondly, Team Leads were on different terms and conditions. They were salaried employees and supervisors involved in changing rotas, dealing with sickness absence and health and safety incidents which were all responsibilities that suggested to the Union that they fell into a supervisory role rather than a worker role. The Union also believed that Team Leads were involved in applying merit bonuses and did so in the absence of any appraisal system.

13) Finally, any “back filling” the workers in the Team Lead job roles did for the workers in the job roles included in the proposed bargaining unit would not affect any collective bargaining position. It was a common occurrence in most industries for supervisors/team leads/managers to fill in when necessary for staff that were off work for any reason. In any event, the Union did not believe that this was a regular occurrence at this particular workplace.

14) With regard to existing national and local bargaining arrangements, the Union did not believe there were any current national bargaining arrangements with the Employer and the workforce. Workers were unhappy with the current bargaining arrangements around their terms and conditions hence their joining the GMB Union to pursue recognition. There was no consultation on sites with regards to pay. Some Union members in the proposed bargaining unit felt they were being treated less favourably. The Union asserted that it could not find any evidence of an annual pay award. The Union also argued that its proposed bargaining unit would not affect what happened on other sites as each site is affected and influenced by market forces in that particular location. Workers in its proposed bargaining unit would benefit from having a say in the negotiation of terms and conditions.

15) With regard to the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking, the Union stated that the proposed bargaining unit was perfect for the workplace as it covered all of the job roles at that site that were covered by the same terms and conditions.

16) In respect of the characteristics and location of the workers falling within the proposed bargaining unit and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considered relevant – the Union stated that the job roles proposed all had commonalities, again in that they were all on the same terms and conditions, hourly paid and permanent members of staff, whereas other workers were not.

17) According to the Union it was clear that not everyone was treated the same in terms of market rates. Those starting in Gateshead would start on a different rate than if they had started working in Exeter or Plymouth. The Employees at Gateshead thought they started at the lowest rate paid at any of the Employer’s branches.

18) Referring to the statutory “…need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters so far as they do not conflict with that need” (see paragraph 7 above), the Union’s position was that the site already stood alone and reiterated that the current common terms and conditions within that group would be compatible with effective management. No other workers on that site fell into this category. Each individual site of the Employer’s business was already stand alone in that there was no ‘joint works council’ at national level or elsewhere in the business that covered the proposed bargaining unit at the Gateshead site. There were no ‘national’ bargaining arrangements encompassing the site at Gateshead or any of the Employer’s other sites. Union members had reported that the other sites operated differently. For example, the starting pay at other sites was above that of the Gateshead site. Allowing other sites into the bargaining unit would be ineffective. Staff based at the Gateshead site working at other sites was an infrequent occurrence. The Union was unaware of any GMB members at the other sites.

19) In conclusion the Union stated that there were examples of small discrete workplaces that were part of national/regional and local companies where recognition had been achieved on one site e.g. View Logistics, Katmex and numerous other care providers and the GMB Union was used to effectively managing these sites. If the Employer wanted to expand the bargaining unit to all workplaces, the Union advised the Employer that it would be happy to agree a voluntary agreement in respect of those sites following the completion of this statutory recognition process. The Union was not willing to risk its current application in seeking recognition on behalf of its current members to pursue a larger bargaining unit until such time as this process was complete.

4. Summary of the Employer’s submissions

20) The Employer’s bundle furnished the Panel with a very detailed description of the Company’s background and profile, structure of its branches and service networks with a number of tables, diagrams and maps to illustrate each of its points to the Panel. The Employer’s supporting documents included a copy of the Contracts of Employment (condensed version), the position descriptions for the relevant job roles and case law it had referenced. The Employer’s case also provided the Panel with two alternative bargaining units that it considered to be appropriate.

5. Company Background and Structure

21) The Employer explained that “Shred-it” was acquired in 2015 and became wholly owned and a subsidiary of “Stericycle”, a multinational corporation. Stericycle provided environmental protection and sustainability services to the general public and corporate entities in a variety of industry sectors operating in 23 countries and employing 1,743 workers in the UK. The Employer referred to its workers as “team members”. Of the 1,743 team members, 673 were employees of Shred-It. Stericycle and Shred-It were separate legal entities - Stericycle was the “SRCL” brand and was the corporation’s Medical Waste business and Shred-it was the “Shred-It Limited” brand and was the corporation’s Secure Document And Media Destruction business. There were 30 Stericycle facilities in the UK of which 15 were Shred-It Customer Service Branches. These branches were geographically located close to customer clusters and were strategically planned corporate sites (including 4 dedicated “off-site” shred centres) servicing 40,000 customers with a daily service average of 2,600 collections.

22) The 15 Shred-It branches were split into 2 similar sized regions which were run by 2 District Operations Managers. District 1 covered Glasgow, Gateshead, Livingston, Preston, Leeds, Warrington, Nottingham, Birmingham, Cardiff and Exeter with a headcount of 221 workers. Darren Pridham was the District Operations Manager for District 1 to whom 4 Customer Service Managers (CSMs) reported. District 2 covered Milton Keynes, Rainham, London West, Portsmouth and Swindon with a head count of 199 workers. Neil Hooker was the District Operations Manager for District 2 to whom 3 Customer Service Managers reported. Each branch was managed by a CSM who may oversee 2-4 branch locations. The 4 off-site Shred Centres also reported to the CSM and each Shred Centre had a Plant Supervisor and a small team of Shred Specialists.

23) The Employer described for the Panel a step by step breakdown of its day to day operations – describing its “secure chain of custody” and its “secure destruction process” which started with the collection of the customers’ information, to transporting the information to one of its secure centres to securely destroying the confidential information for its customers.

6. Views on the Union’s proposed bargaining unit

1. The Employer first expressed its concern that the Union had based its proposal on its level of membership within the proposed group of workers and because these Union members were the only group of workers that had requested recognition of the Union. These two factors relied on by the Union were not in the Employer’s view, valid criteria within the relevant provisions of the Schedule for the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit (see paragraph 7 above). These were two factors that were irrelevant to the question of what was an appropriate bargaining unit.

25) The Employer made its case that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate. The Employer contended that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit constituted a group of workers which was small, illogical and divisive. The Employer’s central point was that the isolation of these workers from all of its other sites/branches for the purposes of collective bargaining directly contradicted the Company’s core ethos which was to apply a “common approach” to run its organisation effectively. By isolating this group of workers the Union would be creating fragmentation across its branch network. It would be artificial and highly unworkable to restrict Union negotiations to the Gateshead branch only.

26) The Employer’s Gateshead branch consisted of a small team of 25 workers, 22 of whom were included in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and covered three roles: Baler; CSR and CSR Helpers. The Union had excluded the Customer Service Supervisor (CSS) and CSR Team Lead who were not Managers. There was only one Customer Service Manager at the Gateshead branch. The Gateshead branch covered only 6% of the work-force. From an operational perspective this would not align with the Employer’s “routing system” which was not set up for such a small unit and was not practical. The CSR role was a front line job and was a generic role across the Shred-It branches in the UK. The Employer operated a centralised system which was an automated Routing Tool, which determined the number of jobs and time for each CSR. The CSR would have a safety check at the branch and would then leave to carry out the job. The Routing Tool defined the appropriate pay category. The CSR Helper role was primarily there to support the day to day collection and involved the worker being on the road with the CSR; it was very much a “learning job”. The Bailer / Shredder role was a “warehouse” function and was based in a fixed location. All workers in this role were vetted in exactly the same way. The CSS role was there to manage the health and safety (to monitor the trucks), sickness and welfare of workers at the branch location. CSSs did not have profit and loss accountability and as such the Employer believed should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. It was a team leader role which was effectively a step between the “shop-floor” and the “office” environment. The CSR Team Lead role overlapped with the CSR roles and the CSSs interacted continuously with all workers at the branch on all day-to-day matters. Contrary to the views of the Union there was a high level of overlap between the workers included in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the workers excluded by the Union on the same site. The Union’s exclusion of the CSS and Team Leaders roles meant that these workers would not have a voice in any collective bargaining that would take place with the Union at this site.

27) Furthermore, the workers at the Gateshead branch carried out identical job responsibilities to the workers at the other Shred-It branches. Workers at the Gateshead branch served customers from other branches and vice versa. Workers across all the Shred-It branches had identical or largely similar employment terms (pay rates, working patterns, holidays, and benefits). According to the Employer, the only distinguishing feature of the workers included in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was that they were located in Gateshead. It made no sense to the Employer to split this group of workers from the rest of the branches. When the Union’s proposal was reviewed in the context of Shred-It’s UK wide operations or its district management structure, the Union’s proposal was too narrow and would cause the workers in the proposed bargaining unit to ‘stick out like a sore thumb’. It would not be compatible with effective management. It carried a high risk of creating small groups and fragmentation in every Shred-It branch across the Company by segregating workers who performed the same kind of work, for identical, or largely similar, pay and common terms of employment. Aside from being a small unit, a Gateshead-only bargaining unit as proposed by the Union would create de facto small units at other branches where workers would not be represented in Union negotiations. This would be unfair, inefficient and give rise to multiple rival union bargaining units.

7. The Employer’s proposals for an alternative bargaining unit

28) The Employer proposed to the Panel two alternative bargaining units that it considered were appropriate:

OPTION 1 - All Shred-It UK branches namely: “All team members based at all Shred-it branch locations, up to but excluding Customer Service Managers, reporting to Darren Pridham and Neil Hooker, District Operations Managers”

29) The Employer stated that option 1 demonstrably satisfied the required criteria and was fully compatible with effective management. This group of workers was more closely aligned with its management structure and people practices at every Shred-It branch. Option 1 was the Employer’s preferred option for three reasons: It affirmed the synergy of local teams by including all Shred-It team members including branch-based team lead/CSRs and immediate supervisors; it reflected the high degree of commonality of employment terms which applied to all branch-based workers and it facilitated continuity of collaboration across branches in both of its Shred-It districts, and it offered consistent employment and people practices across all Shred-It locations irrespective of job role and management structure.

30) Option 1 incorporated all branch locations reporting to the two District Operations Managers who ran the Shred-It businesses in the UK. Darren Pridham (DP) managed district 1 which included the site proposed by the Union – Gateshead, and also Glasgow, Livingston, Preston, Nottingham, Leeds, Warrington, Birmingham, Cardiff and Exeter. Neil Hooker (NH) managed district 2 which included the Portsmouth, Swindon, Milton Keynes, London West and Rainham sites. Option 1 covered job categories: Baler/Shred Specialists; CSR Helper; CSR; CSR Team Lead; CSS and Plant Supervisor.

31) The number of branches, headcount, and mix of job categories was evenly balanced between both senior managers. The combined headcount for option 1 was 420, 221 of which was managed by DP and 199 was managed by NH. All workers in this proposal carried out the same tasks irrespective of their branch location, were employed on the same contractual terms and qualified for identical or largely similar employment benefits and working conditions. This proposal was aligned to – and upheld– a common approach between the two districts. Both managers mirrored the way they ran Shred-It’s UK business. At the oral hearing DP attested that he worked closely with NH as they both had to ensure that everything was done in line with policy and procedures. There was much cross-functionality on a weekly basis so they had to be very focused and aligned with each other.

32) In addition to a cohesive way to manage Shred-It’s business, this option was highly inclusive as it covered all 15 Shred-It branches and all the job categories suggested by the Union in its proposal. Option 1 promoted fair and efficient practices by ensuring commonality of approach on people practices and employment terms for workers with the same job title or function across all of Shred-it’s branches and had regard to the characteristics and location of workers and avoided small fragmented bargaining units.

33) The Employer affirmed that a nationwide bargaining unit was appropriate for a multisite business such as Shred-it, which had a centralised management structure, rapid response to customers and a geographically integrated branch network throughout the UK. The Employer expounded further its central argument that its employment practices centred on “Commonality of Approach” across the Shred-it branches, collective bargaining was only workable if it reflected the same commonality of approach.

34) There were common employment terms and benefits including pay rates, hours of work, holidays, sickness allowance, pension, probationary periods and notice provisions. These were identical irrespective of a worker’s location. Shred-It had a designated suite of Employment Policies and Procedures, which were managed by Human Resources and provided best practice and consistent guidance to line managers and workers in respect of all their employment terms. There were well-established contract of employment templates that related to specific role type across Shred-It. For example, a CSR in Gateshead would receive the same contract template as a CSR in London West, Swindon or Portsmouth. Workers received standard training and this was the same for a CSR or a Baler at Gateshead as it would be for a CSR or Baler at Warrington. Site Managers utilised established company systems materials to co-ordinate training and ensure compliance. There were six examples in the last 12 months of workers who had taken up lateral transfers or promotion job opportunities at other branches.

35) The Employer declared that there was a consistent approach which was applied to Shred-Its pay bands. These specified minimum and maximum pay rates at all branches. Although actual pay could vary by branch location to reflect pay pressures in the local labour market and ensure that competitive pay rates were offered to attract and retain its workers, all staff were paid at a rate within the employer’s bands.

36) The Employer stressed that one of its core values was “ONE TEAM ONE GOAL”. The Stericycle culture was an environment in which every “team member” or worker understood and connected to Stericycle’s purpose and values, felt appreciated and valued in their work, and could learn and grow within the Company. It promoted the inclusion and engagement of all of its team members through effective communication, career development opportunities, job enrichment and recognition. All workers were expected to demonstrate integrity, taking ownership, Customer-First, camaraderie, continuous improvement, and working together regardless of their level. The Company’s one goal was to provide the best experience for its customers and continue to create a positive work experience for its employees. The focus was collaboration. The template contract was common to all Shred-It team members. Flexibility was important, and on occasions it offered recruitment opportunities at other sites. To manage collective bargaining at one site would be ineffective.

37) OPTION 2 – All Shred-It branches reporting to Darren Pridham namely: “All team members at all Shred-It branch locations, up to and excluding Customer Service Managers, reporting to Darren Pridham, District Operations Manager”

38) The Employer offered the second alternative in recognition of the CAC’s responsibility to determine an ‘appropriate’ unit and not the best or most effective unit. The Employer contended that like option 1, option 2 was compatible with effective management, and avoided small units and fragmentation. It also encouraged fair and efficient practices and arrangements within the workplace and took account of the characteristics and locations of workers. Option 2 however, encompassed all Shred-It branches in District 1 and only covered the 221 workers who reported directly to Darren Pridham. This group of workers would have sufficient scale and geographic spread, and covered workers who reported to one senior manager. However, this manager had restricted decision authority because all payroll decisions required Executive Management approval in line with Shred-It’s governance to take account of company-wide considerations.

39) The Employer asserted that Option 2 was therefore a less desirable option because it would introduce unwelcome operational complexities when trying to ensure that any Union-negotiated outcomes did not undermine the Employer’s commitment to treating all team members fairly, and ensuring an integrated approach to operational policies, service delivery, and common employment practices across both districts. The Employer was concerned that option 2 would impede meaningful collective bargaining and be a hindrance to effective management and its commonality of approach for workers who would fall outside of this bargaining unit i.e. the workers in District 2. The Employer asserted that this option contradicted the requirement of the Panel to consider other workers with common characteristics. This second option was also a more restricted bargaining unit in terms of scope and commonality of terms and conditions of employment within a multi-branch district. A main concern for the Employer was different employment terms that might arise from any Union bargaining adversely impacting on collaboration and teamwork between branches on the ‘border’ of the bargaining unit which would hinder effective management.

40) In conclusion the Employer’s case was that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was divisive, created fragmentation and was not compatible with effective management as it was in direct opposition to the Company’s operational structure and approach to management and was not therefore an appropriate bargaining unit.

8. Matters in dispute and clarifications established at the hearing

41) The Employer disagreed with the Union’s position that the workers at the Gateshead branch were at the lower end of the pay scale and that the terms of employment were less favourable than at other branches. In oral submissions the Employer stated that there was no local decision making around pay. All decisions on pay were global and at a nationally controlled level. Hours of work were operated on a national level too and were generally the same for each job type. The Employer referred to the template contract and base salary which it said was set by the US senior management team and then circulated to each branch. HR was approached if there was difficulty in recruiting. But decisions were made in the USA to such an extent that the Employer described pay setting as a global process. Merit awards were performance related and set at a national level. The Employer reiterated that holidays were the same regardless of location and referred the Panel to its written submission – table 3 which showed the weekly hours, overtime, pay cycle, holidays, pension, sickness terms, bonus, life assurance and notice periods for all job roles.

42) When questioned by the Panel about how the word ‘manage’ was used by the Employer within the CSS job description provided with the Employer’s written submissions, the Employer answered that CSS had day to day management duties for key performance indicators but only in regard to process and procedures – they had no financial responsibility. In terms of disciplinary and grievance procedures – they could be a note taker. They did not take decisions on this. Darren Pridham (District Operations Manager for District 1) stated that he started as a CSS and his view was that the CSS role should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. He did not even now as District Operations Manager have autonomy on profit and loss. There was minimal management autonomy at branch level. Everyone who was a CSR did exactly the same thing, and all were vetted and could be deployed to the same function.

43) The Employer also explained how consultation worked within the organisation. The Employer accepted that there were no national or local bargaining arrangements. As an organisation it encouraged one to one meetings and a global consultation was carried out in 2015. Union Response to Employer Case

44) The Union did not accept the Employer’s position with regard to the basis on which it had chosen the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that location was important as every CAC application was membership-led and membership density was vital in order to pass the statutory tests as well as the need for the Union to listen and to respond to its members. It was its Members that had informed the Union that the Gateshead branch was standalone and that the pay bands were “vast” for the same jobs. The Union accepted that merit awards were allocated via one to one discussions and it accepted that this was national however it maintained that Gateshead as standalone bargaining unit and would not create chaos. The workers at Gateshead felt let down and did not feel part of a national company and or that they were on national terms and conditions in practice. The Union maintained that the job roles it had excluded were “low level management”.

9. Considerations

45) The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule to the Act, to decide whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. Paragraph 19B(1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need. The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “[i]n exercising functions under this Schedule in any particular case the CAC must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying other provisions of this Schedule in the case concerned.” The Panel’s decision has been taken after a full and detailed consideration of the views of the Union and the Employer.

46) The Panel’s first responsibility is to decide, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. The Panel notes that it cannot reject the Union’s proposed bargaining unit because it feels that a different unit would be more appropriate nor, in considering whether it is compatible with effective management, can it consider whether it is the most effective or desirable unit in that context.

47) The Panel has also considered the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, so far as they do not conflict with the need for the bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management. Firstly, the Panel has taken into account the views of the Union and those of the Employer. The Panel has no evidence that there are any existing national or local bargaining arrangements in this case. In relation to the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be the sole existing bargaining unit within the Employer’s undertaking and covers only one of 15 branches where workers performed the same tasks and were employed on the same terms and conditions. In the view of the Panel isolating the Gateshead branch from all other branches would be inconsistent with the manner in which the Employer organises the business. It would also create the potential for other equally small rival units to be created with the danger that each unit would negotiate different terms and conditions for workers doing the same jobs. It follows therefore that the Panel is satisfied that in the circumstances as they currently exist the Union’s proposed bargaining unit could lead to fragmentation between bargaining units or fragmented collective bargaining.

48) The Panel has concluded, therefore, that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate as it does not reflect how the company runs its business. The Union’s proposed bargaining unit did not demonstrate a distinct and identifiable group of workers that would fit with the company business model. The workers at Gateshead share common terms and conditions of employment and perform the same roles as workers at all the other locations operated by the Employer. There is a clear and obvious danger that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit could create small fragmented bargaining units. We are of the view that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not compatible with effective management and, therefore, is not appropriate.

49) Having decided that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate the Panel’s next responsibility is to decide a bargaining unit which is appropriate. The Employer has suggested to the Panel two alternative bargaining units. The first option covered all workers at all the Shred-It Branches up to and including CSR team leads, CSS and Plant Supervisors. The other option proposed by the Employer was one which would restrict the bargaining unit to those workers employed in branches constituting District One. In the Employer’s submissions to the panel it was acknowledged that Option 2 was sub-optimal and had the potential to drive a wedge between the District Operations Manager in District One and his counterpart in District Two. It also excludes workers who are on the same terms and conditions of employment and doing the same jobs. In the Panel’s view it is also inconsistent with the Employer’s national approach to pay setting and job regulation. The Panel agrees with the Employer’s assessment of the limitations of this bargaining unit and would go further and argue that it is not a practicable option. The Panel therefore holds that Option 2 covering workers only employed in District One is not compatible with effective management and not appropriate.

50) The Employer’s alternative Unit which covers all the workers in all the branches in District One and Two has the advantage of reflecting the entire basis of the business of Shred-It and is consistent with day to day reality. It would more closely capture the Employer’s approach to how terms and conditions are set and business organised. It would encompass all the workers employed by the company who perform the same roles and have the same terms and conditions of employment. It would avoid the fragmentation of bargaining and the potential for small units. In the view of the Panel it is consistent with the objectives of Paragraph 171 of the Schedule to encourage fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Employer’s preferred bargaining unit would be consistent with effective management and therefore appropriate subject to one important caveat.

51) The Panel has concerns as to whether CSR Team Leads and CSS and Plant Supervisors should be members of this bargaining unit. The Panel notes that these groups of workers have differences in their terms and conditions of employment in comparison with other workers in the bargaining unit. Moreover, after examining the position descriptions for these posts, the Panel formed the view that these descriptions were much closer to management and leadership roles than shop floor positions. For these reasons it is the view of the Panel that CSR Team Leads and CSS and Plant Supervisors should not be members of the Employer’s first option for an appropriate bargaining unit.

##Decision##

52) The appropriate bargaining unit is that which has been determined by the CAC Panel namely:

“All team members based at all Shred-It Ltd branch locations, up to and excluding CSR Team Leaders, Customer Service Supervisors, and Plant Supervisors.”

53) As the appropriate bargaining unit differs from that proposed by the Union in its application to the CAC, the Panel will proceed under paragraph 20(2) of the Schedule to decide if the application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

Panel

Professor Kenny Miller - Panel Chair

Mrs Maureen Chambers

Ms Virginia Branney

11 October 2019

10. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

Julie Wynn - Regional Organiser & Equalities Officer, GMB Northern

Etain Stobbart - GMB Northern

Stephen Thompkins - GMB Northern

For the Employer

David Morgan - Solicitor, Burness Paull LLP

Helen Inch - HR Director, Shred-It Limited

Darren Pridham - District Operations Manager, Shred-It Limited, Aberdeen
Edinburgh, Glasgow

Cal Schmidt - Vice President, Labor and M&A Integration, Stericycle Inc.