Form of Ballot
Updated 25 July 2024
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-iww-escape-hunt-group-ltd/form-of-ballot
Case Number: TUR1/1397(2024)
14 May 2024
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT
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 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) By a decision dated 23 April 2024 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. As the Employer, in its response to the application, had stated its agreement to the proposed bargaining unit, the Panel then had to decide whether a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. If the Panel was not satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union, then it must arrange for the holding of a ballot.
2. Issues
4) On 29 April 2024, the Panel, satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. 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), before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.
5) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 13 May 2024. The parties did not advise the CAC that they did not want the ballot to be held, in terms of paragraph 24(2).
3. The parties’ submissions on the form of ballot
6) By an email to the Case Manager dated 4 May 2024 the Employer stated its preference was for a postal ballot.
7) By an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 3 May 2024, the Union stated it would like a combination ballot on site at the workplace with the option of a postal vote for any who could not attend in person.
4. 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;
(b) costs and practicality;
(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.
9) The parties have put forward two different types of ballots for the Panel to consider. The Employer has argued for a postal ballot whereas the Union has submitted that the ballot should be a workplace ballot.
10) The Panel, having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, has decided that, on the grounds of cost and practicality, the appropriate form of ballot in the circumstances would be a postal ballot. It is the Panel’s view that it would not be cost effective to conduct a workplace ballot given the relatively small size of the agreed bargaining unit, which currently stands at 11 workers.
5. Decision
11) The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.
12) The name of the Qualified Independent Person 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
Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair
Mr Mustafa Faruqi
Mr Paul Moloney
14 May 2024