Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 25 July 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1397(2024)

 23 April 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:

Industrial Workers of the World

and

Escape Hunt Group Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Industrial Workers of the World (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) on 2 April 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Escape Hunt Group Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit described as,”All employees that are employed as Game Masters and Supervisors at the Exeter Escape Hunt UK venue (28 High St, Exeter EX4 3HP). The Employer recognises the Union as the sole union entitled to represent the interests of the aforementioned employees and negotiate on their behalf”.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 April 2024.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 9 April 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 Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Mr Paul Moloney.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 16 April 2024.  The acceptance period was extended to 30 April 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.

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)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 4 March 2024 by way of an email requesting that the Employer recognise the Union to conduct collective bargaining. The Employer did not respond within 10 days and subsequently held a meeting to discuss the application with staff on 19 March 2024, which was attended by a union representative.

6)         When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union left the answer blank.  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)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 21 and 11 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 4 were Union members.

8)         Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.  When called upon 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, “A petition has been signed by 7 of the workers in the bargaining unit”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because “The proposed bargaining unit would provide representation to all workers in favour of recognition with the IWW. The proposed bargaining unit would allow for a dialogue between the union, its members and the employer on issues covered by the agreement”. The Union also confirmed that the proposed bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it 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 29 March 2024.  

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

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it received the Union’s written request for recognition on 4 March 2024. The Employer stated “No response was sent in writing, but a meeting was held with all employees of the bargaining unit to understand the request, post-dating the date of the petition submitted in evidence by the union. Minutes are attached. Based on the minutes we were unclear of the level of support for the request, and it is not immediately apparent that the majority of the bargaining unit support recognition”.

12)       The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, but it did now agree with the proposed bargaining unit.  

13)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No”.

14)       The Employer stated that it employed a total of 1040 workers. When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application the Employer answered, “Yes”.

15)       The Employer, when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, and to indicate its reasons for disagreeing, with any available evidence, the Employer’s response was to state “n/a”.

16)       When asked if the Employer considered that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, and to indicate its reasons for taking this view, the Employer stated, “We acknowledge the petition received, but a meeting was held with all employees of the bargaining unit to understand the request, post-dating the date of the petition submitted in evidence by the union. Minutes are attached. Based on the minutes we were unclear of the level of support for the request, and it is not immediately apparent that the majority of the bargaining unit support recognition”.

17)       The Employer said “n/a” when asked if there was any existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “n/a”.

18)       Finally, the Employer said “n/a” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit.   Asked 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 answered, “n/a”.

5. The check of membership and support

19)       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.  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 workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Unions would supply to the Case Manager a list of their paid-up members within that unit (including their dates of birth) and a copy of the petition signed by workers in favour of recognition. 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 9 April 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.

20)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 12 April 2024 and from the Employer on 10 April 2024.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially in accordance with the agreement with the parties.   

21)       The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 11 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 4 names.  According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 4, a membership level of 36.36%.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 12 April 2024 and the parties’ comments invited.

22)       The petition supplied by the Union contained 7 names and signatures. The report showed that 63.64% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit had signed the petition in favour of recognition. The proportion of workers in the proposed bargaining unit who had signed the petition and were non-members was 27.27%.

The Union’s petition comprised of two A4 sheets containing 7 names/signatures. Each page was set out as follows:

“We the undersigned support the acceptance of the ESCAPE HUNT GROUP LIMITED & IWW Recognition and Procedural Agreement.

Name:

Job Role:

Signature:

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

23)       Neither party submitted comments on the results of the membership report by the deadline imposed.

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 above are satisfied.  The Panel has considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence 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 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and 36(1)(b) are met. 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

26)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 21 above showed that 36.36% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. 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.

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 proposed 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 considers that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining. As stated above, these amount to 36.36% of the workers in the bargaining unit. The Panel also considers that the workers who signed the petition in support of recognition but are not union members, a further 27.27% of the workers in the bargaining unit, are likely to support recognition, giving a total of 63.63%. On the basis of the evidence in this case, therefore, the Panel decides that 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.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Mr Paul Moloney

 23 April 2024