Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 11 November 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1431(2024)

30 October 2024

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:

IWGB

and

Sheffield Wildlife Trust

1. Introduction

1)         IWGB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 8 October 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Sheffield Wildlife Trust (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “All directly employed staff of Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust below the grade of department manager. The unit includes programme managers and office manager, but excludes casual workers, Senior HR administrative officer the HR and Ops manager and the senior finance officer” based at Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust, 37 Stafford Rd, Sheffield, S2 2SF. The Union stated that the bargaining unit in its application differed from the original bargaining unit in the formal request for recognition as agreement had been reached with the Employer.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 9 October 2024.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 15 October 2024 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, Mr Alastair Kelly and Mr Paul Moloney.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

3)         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.

4)         The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 22 September 2024.  The acceptance period was extended to 5 November 2024 to allow time to conduct a membership check and for the parties to comment on the results before the Panel arrived at a decision.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 31 January 2024 and that the Employer had responded on 6 February 2024 inviting the Union to enter into negotiations. The Union accepted this proposal and both parties engaged in negotiations which ended on 8 October 2024.

6)         When asked whether the Union had made any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered “No”. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties and the Union had agreed to this proposal.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 83. The Union confirmed that there were 58 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 36 were members of the Union.

8)         When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated, “36 employees are members of the union. This constitutes 62% of the bargaining unit”

9)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was that “The makeup of the bargaining unit was negotiated with the employer and has been agreed by both parties. The workers in the bargaining unit are under the control and direction of the employer. The choice of the bargaining unit is practical and reasonable because all the workers have similar terms and conditions, are subject to the same control and management and report the same primary location. This bargaining unit is compatible with effective management”.

10)       The Union said that the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.

11)       Finally, the Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 8 October 2024.  

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

12)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 31 January 2024. The Employer stated it responded to the Union by way of a letter dated 6 February 2024, confirming it would welcome the opportunity to understand and discuss the request for voluntary union recognition further with union officials as appropriate.

13)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 8 October 2024. The Employer when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union stated “Yes”. When asked if it agreed the bargaining unit as set out by the Union in its application the Employer answered “Yes”.

14)       The Employer confirmed that following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist in order to facilitate the meetings as this had previously fallen to the Executive Team. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer also stated that it employed a total of 96 employees, of which 74 were on the payroll for the previous month. The Employer confirmed that it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and it believed they had 58 employees in the bargaining unit at this moment. 

15)       Asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “We do not have any information or evidence about the numbers of members in the BU other than that just recently included in the Application Form.  We had been in the process of requesting a ballot to establish the level of support. Therefore, we can neither agree nor disagree but assume that CAC will establish/confirm this”.

16)       When asked if the Employer did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition and to indicate its reasons of taking this view with any available evidence, the Employer stated “see above” referring to its comments on the Union’s estimate of membership as its response to this question.

17)       Finally, when asked on whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer stated “N/A”.

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 agreed bargaining unit are members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the 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 bargaining unit.  It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of the workers in the bargaining unit which had been proposed by the Union in its application form, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit including their full names, dates of birth and job titles (where available). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 16 October 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.

19)       The information requested was received by the CAC from the Union on 16 October 2024 and from the Employer on 21 October 2024. 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 58 workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 36 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of members in the agreed bargaining unit was 34, a membership level of 58.62%.

21)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 21 October 2024 and the parties’ comments invited.

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

22)       In an email to the Case Manager dated 22 October 2024 the Union stated, “The only comments from the IWGB is that the membership check shows that the application is admissible under paragraph 36 of the Schedule as it shows that at least 10% of the bargaining unit is part of the union. Further as more than 50% of the employees are members of the union, that is sufficient evidence to show that more than 50% are likely to favour a recognition agreement.”.

23)       In an email to the Case Manager dated 24 October 2024 the Employer stated, “Thank you for the comparison of numbers in the bargaining unit.  We don’t have any comments at this time”.

7. Considerations

24)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision are satisfied.  The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision. 

25)       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 12.  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.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

26)       In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule the Panel must determine whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit.  In this case the membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraph 20 above) showed that 58.62% of the workers in the bargaining unit 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 agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

27)       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 agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

28)       The Panel notes from the membership check that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (58.62%) are members of the Union.  In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf.  On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that a majority of the workers in the agreed 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Alastair Kelly

Mr Paul Moloney

30 October 2024