Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 16 April 2021

Case Number: TUR1/1159(2020)

4 March 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:

PCS

and

Axis Security Services Limited

1. Introduction

1) PCS (the Union) submitted an application dated 13 February 2020 to the CAC, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Axis Security Services Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising the “Axis employees working on the BEIS Core contract e.g. Locations: 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9SZ”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 14 February 2020. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 18 February 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Chairman of the Panel, and, as Members, Miss Mary Canavan and Mr David Coats. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.

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. The Union’s application

4) In its application the Union confirmed that it had a certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had made a formal request for recognition under the Schedule on 5 February 2020, in which it asked for a response within 10 days and to which the Employer responded by e-mail on 11 February 2020. The Employer responded that it was not prepared to recognise the PCS Union. A copy of both correspondences was enclosed with the Union’s application.

5) According to the Union, a total of 2,500 workers were employed by the Employer. The Union estimated 8 of these workers fell within its proposed bargaining unit, of whom 7 were Union members. 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 7 full PCS Union members supported recognition. They had transferred to Axis from ISS and wanted the PCS Union to represent them in the TUPE transfer. The Union enclosed with its application a copy of a list of the names of the its 7 Union members.

6) When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated as follows: “We are seeking recognition for the bargaining unit agreed previously by ISS (previous Employer) in the recent collective agreement on pay and conditions signed on 24 September 2019 between the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), PCS Union and ISS. BEIS controls, through the contract they hold with Axis, the pay and terms and conditions of members in this bargaining unit”. A copy of the agreement was enclosed with the Union’s application. When asked if the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer the Union answered “Partial – BEIS agreed”.

7) The Union stated there had been no previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and there was no existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union also confirmed the date on which it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer was on 13 February 2020.

4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s application

8) The Employer confirmed that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition under the Schedule on 5 February 2020. When asked how it had responded, the Employer attached a copy of its e-mail to the Union dated 11 February in which it stated “Our decision at present is that we are not prepared to recognise PCS Union for our staff at 151 BPR further to your official request. I would also like to advise you that our client is not BEIS.” The Employer also confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form on 13 February 2020. The Employer also confirmed that it had not proposed that Acas be requested to assist.

9) When asked if it and the Union had agreed the proposed bargaining unit before it had received a copy of the Union’s application the Employer answered “No”. When asked if it agreed with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered, “Yes 8 People”. The Employer also confirmed that it employed 2,500 workers.

10) When asked if it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership within the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered that it currently had no knowledge of who was a member. When also asked to provide its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition, the Employer answered that it had no knowledge of this.

11) The Employer stated that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer explained that “PCS state there is an agreement in place with BEIS, but we have no knowledge of this or link to this Company”. The Employer enclosed a copy of its e-mails to the Union dated 11 and 18 February 2020 in which it provided an in depth explanation of its position that there was no commercial contract between BEIS and its client and that it did not receive payment from BEIS and therefore no relationship existed. The contract had changed to the degree that it did not even secure the same areas in the building. All Axis services were supplied solely to the landlord, Gaw Capital, which was restricted to the landlord areas only and that its end client was Gaw Capital.

12) Finally, the Employer stated that it was not aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of the proposed bargaining unit or similar bargaining unit.

5. Panel’s Considerations

13) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision.

14) 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 and that it was made in accordance with paragraph 11(2) of the Schedule in that, before the end of the first period of 10 working-days following the Employer’s receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did not accept the Union’s request. The remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.

6. Paragraph 36(1)(a)

15) 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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. In its response to the application the Employer agreed with the Union’s estimate that there were 8 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Union attached with its application the names of 7 individuals as evidence of Union members in its proposed bargaining unit and this was not contested by the Employer. It is therefore clear to the Panel 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 and that this admissibility criterion is satisfied.

7. Paragraph 36(1)(b)

16) The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether 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 proposed bargaining unit. The Employer did not oppose this assertion by the Union in its application, neither did it provide any evidence to the contrary. In addition, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit as declared and listed by the Union was not disputed by the Employer.

17) The Panel considers that the level of Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit provides a legitimate indicator as to the degree of likely support for recognition of the Union for collective bargaining. The level of Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit stands at 87.5%, according to the information provided by the parties. In view of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition of the Union and the test set out in paragraph 36(1)(b) is therefore met.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani - Chairman of the Panel

Miss Mary Canavan

Mr David Coats.

4 March 2020