Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 20 April 2021

Case Number: TUR1/1152/2019

14 January 2020

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

GMB

and

The Devonshire Group

1. Introduction

1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 18 December 2019 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by The Devonshire Group (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “The Guides Team at Chatsworth House”. The application was received by the CAC on 18 December 2019 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 19 December 2019. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 January 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr David Crowe and Ms Virginia Branney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Linda Lehan.

3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 6 January 2020. The acceptance period was extended to 20 January 2020 in order to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report and the Panel to consider these comments before arriving at a decision.

2. Issues

4) The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5) The Union’s application was sent to the CAC under cover of an email dated 18 December 2019. The Union attached to their application a copy of their request letter sent to the Employer dated 7 November 2019 together with a copy of the Employer’s response dated 18 November 2019. In the response letter the Employer stated that they were not willing to negotiate a recognition agreement, did not consider the proposed bargaining unit to be an appropriate one and had no evidence of support for GMB recognition either in the proposed bargaining unit or in a more appropriate one.

6) The Union confirmed that they had not made a previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition for workers in their proposed bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7) According to the Union there were 1200 workers employed by the Employer of whom 70 were in the proposed bargaining unit. Out of the 70 workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union stated that 39 were members.

8) When asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union stated that it had a petition signed by 71% of the bargaining unit, conducted in December 2019, which it could provide if necessary.

9) The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because their members wished for a recognition agreement for collective bargaining between the GMB and the Employer at Chatsworth House. The Union said that it believed it had over 50% membership in the proposed bargaining unit.

10) The Union stated that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer and it was not aware of any existing recognition agreement which covered any worker in the bargaining unit. The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 18 December 2019.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

11) The Employer confirmed that it had received the Union’s written request letter on 7 November 2019 and had responded rejecting the application on 18 November 2019 and attached a copy of their letter.

12) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union at 16:15 hrs via email on 18 December 2019.

13) The Employer did not agree with the proposed bargaining unit stating that whilst there were employees carrying out the role of ‘a guide’ they did not constitute a separate grouping within the Devonshire Group and it would not be practicable for that role to be hived off into a separate group. The Employer stated that the Devonshire Group consisted of the Chatsworth Settlement Trust, Chatsworth Estate Trading Limited, the Devonshire Hotels & Restaurant Group Limited and The Cavendish Club, Elm Tree Farm Limited, Devonshire Educational Trust and the Duke of Devonshire. The Employer stated that it had approximately 1400 employees who shared the same terms and conditions and had common pay scale, centralised finance, payroll, HR and IT functions.

14) On the Chatsworth site the Employer said that during the “open season” there were 765 employees which included Guides, Visitor Welcome Assistants, Visitor Engagement Supervisors, Bookings, Membership, Switchboard, Gardeners, Maintenance, Car park Assistants, Security, Chefs, Waiters, Retail Shop Assistants, Warehouse Staff, Buyers, Events Management, Park Maintenance and Administrative Staff. The Employer stated that the visitor experience was delivered by staff across the Chatsworth site working together. They all reported through their management to the Chief Operating Officer at Chatsworth, who was responsible for approximately 900 workers across the Chatsworth site and the farm shop in nearby Pilsley. Many staff worked for more than one department (and some Guides worked in other roles such as Visitor Welcome Assistants, Catering and in the Farm Shop) and all departments operated with the same pay grades and bandings. The Employer stated that the proposed bargaining unit of the Guides alone would not be consistent with effective management.

15) The Employer did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and said that there were 78 individuals who worked as Guides.

16) The Employer said that it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership as it had seen no evidence and they unaware of those numbers having joined.

17) As to whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer stated that they denied any properly identifiable bargaining unit existed and were not aware of any employees outside the ‘guides’ who had registered any interest in joining the GMB.

5. The membership and support check

18) To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit and of a petition compiled by the Union. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, date of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names and date of birth of paid up members within that unit and a copy of a petition signed by workers in favour of recognition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that to preserve confidentiality the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 6 January 2020 from the Case Manager to both parties.

19) The information from the Union and the Employer was received by the CAC on 7 January 2020. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

20) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 76 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 39 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 35, a membership level of 46.05%.

21) The Union’s petition consisted of 50 names/signatures. According to the Case Manager’s report 47 were workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represents 61.84% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 47 names/signatories, 31 were members of the Union (40.79% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 16 were non-members (21.05% of the proposed bargaining unit). The petition was set out as follows:

PETITION IN SUPPORT OF RECOGNITION

CHATSWORTH HOUSE GUIDES

GMB trade union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit support our application. If you do support us, please sign this petition.

I support recognition of GMB trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on terms and conditions, pay, hours and holidays on behalf of all guides at Chatsworth House.

NAME	SIGNATURE	JOB TITLE

22) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 8 January 2020 and the parties were invited to comment on the results by 10 January 2020.

6. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

23) In a letter to the CAC dated 9 January 2020 the Union stated that GMB membership with The Guide Group since August 2019 had been as low as 36 members and as high as 44 with continuous recruitment of new members. The Union said that at the time of the check the numbers appeared to show 46.05%, however, this was explained by seasonal workers’ movement post the Christmas period and they had confidence that they had now gained over 50% of The Guide Group as members. The Union said that more than 50% of the proposed bargaining unit had signed the petition which would have been higher but due to lack of opportunity/access not all members of the proposed bargaining unit were approached.

24) The Union also responded to the Employer’s response going into detail about the bargaining unit but, if necessary, the Union will have the opportunity of putting forward their arguments to be considered by the Panel at a later stage of the process.

25) The Employer confirmed in an email of 9 January 2020 that they had no comments to make.

7. Considerations

26) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

27) The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

8. Paragraph 36(1)(a)

28) Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

29) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 46.05% of the workers were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 19 above the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

9. Paragraph 36(1)(b)

30) Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

31) The Panel notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 61.84% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (47 out of 76 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition of the Union. Of those who had signed the petition 31 were Union members (40.79% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 16 were non-members (21.05% of the proposed bargaining unit). The Panel also notes the Union’s concern that due to lack of opportunity/access not all members of the proposed bargaining unit were approached.

32) On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

10. Decision

33) For the reasons given above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr David Crowe

Ms Virginia Branney

14 January 2020