Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 5 June 2020

Case Number: TUR1/1175(2020)

04 June 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:

National Union of Journalists

and

Alaraby

1. Introduction

1) The National Union of Journalists (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 21 May 2020 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Alaraby (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All editorial staff currently working at Alaraby excluding senior managers”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as the Newsroom of Alaraby in London, Units 4 & 5, Central Park, Central Way, Park Royal, London NW10 7FY. The application was received by the CAC on 21 May 2020 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application that day. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 2 June 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 Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Len Aspell and Mr Paul Noon OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Linda Lehan.

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.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

4) In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had held a series of meetings and discussions with the Employer throughout 2019. The Union stated that after failing to make significant progress with voluntary recognition it had written to the Employer on 11 December 2019 to formally request recognition under the Schedule. A copy of the request letter was attached to the Union’s application. The Union stated that it had met again with the Employer on 27 January 2020 and discussed a draft recognition agreement. The Union said that the meeting had gone well and that following the meeting the Union had emailed to the Employer another version of the agreement with the changes that had been discussed and agreed at that meeting. The Union stated that sadly since then it had been unable to make any progress.

5) 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. The Union stated that after failing to make progress it had approached ACAS on 22 April 2020 to ask for help.

6) The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was approximately 400. The Union stated that there were 137 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 85 were members of the Union. The Union said that it could share the membership details with the CAC but not with the Employer. 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 the majority of the staff in that area wanted collective bargaining rights and had joined the Union with the specific aim of achieving them. The Union stated that the Union chapel had collectively expressed strongly its desire to have recognition in the workplace and that union officials had explained clearly what recognition would mean. The Union stated that, from its establishment, the chapel had been very proactive in holding meetings, discussing collective issues and trying to engage with management. The Union said that as well as bread and butter issues relating to pay and working conditions, the chapel had been engaged with important health and safety issues during the Covid-19 crisis.

7) The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because the Union represented journalists and media workers in the UK and Ireland. The Union stated that the selected bargaining unit consisted of all editorial workers working for the Employer. The Union stated that as far as it was concerned it had been agreed with the Employer that this was an appropriate bargaining unit in a meeting on 27 January 2020. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit. 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 answered “No”.

8) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application to the CAC, and supporting documents, to the Employer on 21 May 2020.

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

9) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 11 December 2019. The Employer stated that it had met with the Union to discuss recognition and a draft voluntary agreement and that those discussions were ongoing. The Employer said that due to the ongoing coronavirus epidemic and the impact upon the business it had not been possible to progress those discussions.

10) The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 21 May 2020. When asked whether the Employer and the Union had agreed the bargaining unit before the Employer received a copy of the application form from the Union the Employer stated that it had agreed the bargaining unit for the most part, in principle, in the draft recognition agreement but that it was still subject to Board approval. The Employer stated that it did not agree the bargaining unit as stated in the Union’s application to the CAC because the term ‘newsroom’ was too vague. The Employer stated that it had agreed for the most part in principle in the draft voluntary recognition agreement, and subject to Board approval, on specific departments with specific management excluded.

11) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it did not have an issue with Acas being requested to assist and that it had received an email from Acas on 23 April 2020.

12) The Employer stated it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer said that the number of workers in the Employer’s proposed bargaining unit was 112. The Employer stated that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13) In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered ‘N/A’. When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer answered ‘N/A’.

14) When asked if there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered ‘NO’. When asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule made by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered “NA”.

5. Considerations

15) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

16) 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.

6. Paragraph 36(1)(a)

17) 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.

18) In its application the Union stated that there were 137 workers in its proposed bargaining unit of whom 85 were members of the Union. Assuming that the figure of 137 workers is correct this constitutes a membership level of 62%. In its response to the Union’s application the Employer did not comment on whether or not it agreed with the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit; rather it stated that there were 112 workers in the bargaining unit proposed by the Employer. The Panel is therefore prepared to assume, for the purposes of this decision, that the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is no greater than 137. The Employer did not challenge the Union’s figure of 85 members and the Panel has no evidence from any other source which suggests that this figure is inaccurate. On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel has therefore decided, on the balance of probabilities, 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.

7. Paragraph 36(1)(b)

19) 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.

20) As stated in paragraph 18 above the Panel has accepted, for the purposes of this decision, that the level of union membership is 62%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition. No evidence to the contrary was received in this case. The Panel is therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, 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

21) For the reasons given in paragraphs 16-20 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chair

Mr Len Aspell

Mr Paul Noon OBE

04 June 2020