Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 23 December 2020

Case Number: TUR1/1143(2019)

22 December 2020

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION

The Parties:

NUJ

and

Cogora Limited

1. Introduction

1) The NUJ (the Union) submitted an application, dated 8 November 2019 and received by the CAC on 11 November 2019, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Cogora Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising the “Editorial Department workers working on the Cogora Media brands, namely: Pulse, Nursing in Practice, Hospital Pharmacy Europe, Hospital Healthcare Europe, Healthcare Leader, Management in Practice, and The Pharmacist”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 12 November 2019. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 18 November 2019 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 Charles Wynn-Evans, as Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Simon Faiers, who was later replaced with Mr Derek Devereux, and Mr Paul Noon OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.

3) By a decision dated 3 January 2020 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit the period for which was initially due to end on 31 January 2020 but which was extended to 28 February 2020 to allow more time for the parties to continue negotiations.

4) By e-mail to the CAC on 24 February 2020, the Union requested that the Panel determine the matter of the appropriate bargaining unit as negotiations between the parties had broken down. To assist the Panel with its determination, the CAC arranged a hearing to be held with the parties in London on 8 April 2020. The parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit in advance of the hearing date however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this hearing did not proceed. After careful consideration of the parties’ written submissions regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and responding comments, the Panel concluded that it could go no further on the matter of determining the appropriate bargaining unit until a hearing had been held. The CAC therefore informed the parties that a formal hearing would take place by video conference on 15 September 2020.

2. Agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit

5) By e-mail to the CAC on 9 September 2020 the Union informed the CAC that the parties had reached an agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. The Union stated that the agreed bargaining unit was that proposed by the Union but with the addition of the Digital Executive role. The Union also stated that it would waive its objection to a ballot and its argument that the CAC must issue a declaration that the Union should be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit under para 22(2) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Schedule) by conceding that a ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations pursuant to para 22(3) and para 22(4)(a) of the Schedule.

6) The Union went on to state that the parties had also agreed that the revised and now agreed bargaining unit was subject to the CAC’s decision as to whether the Union’s application was still valid pursuant to paragraphs 45(1)(a) and 45(1)(b) of the Schedule. The Union stated that, if the Union’s application was deemed to still be valid by the CAC, the parties were in agreement that the matter should proceed to a ballot under paragraph 22 of the Schedule in the interests of good industrial relations. On the same date, the Employer, also by e-mail, confirmed that it was in agreement with the Union’s application to vacate the hearing on the basis of the parties’ agreement as detailed in the Union’s e-mail.

7) As the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union, the Panel was required by paragraph 20 of the Schedule to determine whether the Union’s application was valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. By a decision made on 28 September 2020, the Panel’s decision was that the application was not invalid and that the CAC would proceed with the application.

3. Panel’s Decision to hold a ballot

8) Paragraph 22 of the Schedule provides that, if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of these qualifying conditions is fulfilled. The three qualifying conditions are:

• the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;

• the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;

• membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf

and Paragraph 22(5) states that “membership evidence” is:

(a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or

(b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.

9) The Panel did not consider that it was automatically bound as such, by the parties’ agreement between themselves in connection with their agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit, to conclude that there should be a secret ballot in relation to this application. The Panel nonetheless acknowledged that it must of course take the parties’ representations into account. Notwithstanding the Union’s membership density of 69% in the bargaining unit, in light of the parties’ representations that there should be a secret ballot in the interest of good industrial relations, the Panel made a decision on 7 October 2020 that a secret ballot should take place as it was satisfied that it would be in the interests of good industrial relations for support for recognition to be tested in this way. Accordingly, the Panel gave notice to the parties pursuant to paragraph 22(3) of 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.

4. The ballot

10) By the CAC’s letter to the parties dated 7 October 2020 the parties were informed that there was a notification period under paragraph 24 of the Schedule of 10 working days. If, during the notification period, the CAC was informed by the Union, or by the Union and the Employer jointly, that they did not wish the CAC to arrange a ballot, it would take no further action on the application. If the CAC was not so informed by the end of the notification period, the CAC would arrange a ballot. The parties were also informed that if a ballot was required, the Panel would have to decide whether it should be a workplace or postal ballot or a combination of these two methods and the parties were invited to submit their representations on the form of ballot.

11) The notification period elapsed without the Union, or the Union and the Employer jointly, informing the CAC that they did not want the CAC to arrange for the holding of the ballot. In an email from the Union dated 8 October 2020 , and a letter from the Employer dated 9 October 2020, each party stated that their preference was for a postal ballot. The Panel decided in accordance with paragraph 25(5) of the Schedule that a postal ballot should take place and this decision was communicated to the parties by a letter from the Case Manager dated 9 October 2020.

12) On 13 November 2020 Kanto Elect was appointed as the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) to conduct the postal ballot and the parties were notified accordingly. The postal ballot papers were dispatched on 30 November 2020 to be returned to the QIP by no later than noon on 14 December 2020.

13) The QIP reported to the CAC on 15 December 2020 that, of 16 workers eligible to vote, 16 ballot papers had been returned. No ballot papers were found to be blank or spoilt. 11 workers, that is 69% of those voting, had voted to support the proposal that the Union be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer. The number of votes supporting the proposal as a percentage of the bargaining unit was 69%. The CAC informed the Employer and the Union on 15 December 2020 of the result of the ballot in accordance with paragraph 29(2) of the Schedule.

5. Declaration of Recognition

14) The ballot establishes that a majority of the workers voting, and at least 40% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit, support the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer for the purpose of conducting collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. This satisfies the conditions under which the CAC must issue a declaration in favour of recognition in accordance with paragraph 29(3) of the Schedule.

15) The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising:

The Editorial Department workers working on the Cogora Media brands, namely: Pulse, Nursing in Practice, Hospital Pharmacy Europe, Hospital Healthcare Europe, Healthcare Leader, Management in Practice, and The Pharmacist.

Panel

Mr Charles Wynn-Evans, Panel Chair

Mr Derek Devereux

Mr Paul Noon OBE

22 December 2020