Recognition Decision
Updated 16 April 2021
Case Number: TUR1/1159/2020
05 May 2020
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
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.
3) By a decision dated 4 March 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.
4) On 6 March 2020, performing its duty under paragraph 18A of the Schedule, the Employer provided to the Union and the CAC the categories of worker, the workplace and total number of workers in each category of worker in the proposed bargaining unit. The categories were: Supervisor (of which there was 1 worker) and Security Officer (of which there were 6 workers). The Employer confirmed the workplace as 151 Buckingham Palace Road.
5) By email to the CAC dated 6 April 2020, the Employer confirmed that it believed that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was the appropriate bargaining unit and that it intended to meet with the Union to discuss next steps. The Employer’s e-mail was duly copied to the Union by the CAC on the same date. In that e-mail, the Employer also stated that it wished to clarify with the Union that any potential agreement entered into would be between the Union and Axis Security Services Limited and not BEIS, as BEIS was no longer its client. The Employer clarified further that it did not provide any security for the tenanted areas of BEIS in the building. The Employer wanted any confusion to be resolved before proceeding with any potential voluntary recognition with the Union. As the agreed bargaining unit was the same as that proposed by the Union in its application the Panel proceeded with the application.
2. Issues
6) Paragraph 22 of Schedule A1 to the Act (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:
(a) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;
(b) 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;
(c) 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.
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.
3. The Union’s claim to majority membership
7) In a letter dated 14 April 2020 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. By its e-mail to the CAC dated 17 April 2020, the Union confirmed that it was claiming majority membership and therefore claiming recognition with the employer without the need for a ballot. The Union stated that there were 8 workers in the bargaining unit and 7 were Union members.
4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s claim to majority membership
8) On 17 April 2020 the CAC copied the Union’s e-mail to the Employer and invited it to make submissions on the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and on the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.
9) The Employer responded by e-mail to the CAC dated 26 April 2020 (received by the CAC on 27 April) in which it stated that whilst the parties had agreed on the bargaining unit, it had no sight of who were Union members but that the bargaining unit was currently made up of 7 staff as one of the workers had resigned and left.
5. The Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the Union’s claim to majority membership
10) On 27 April 2020 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the Union and invited its comments. On 28 April 2020 the Union responded by e-mail stating that having spoken to its local branch representatives, it could confirm that the bargaining unit had now reduced in size to 7 (due to a member of staff leaving employment) and that the Union now had 6 members in the bargaining unit who were identified in the membership list provided to the CAC in its application. The Union was therefore confirming that the Union was claiming majority membership and claiming recognition with the employer without the need for a ballot.
6. Considerations
11) The Schedule requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must declare the Union recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit unless it decides that any of the three qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. If the Panel considers that any of them is fulfilled it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.
12) The Union attached with its application to the CAC dated 13 February 2020 the names of 7 individuals as evidence of Union members in its proposed bargaining unit which was uncontested by the Employer at that time. The level of Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit which was subsequently agreed by the Employer at that time stood at 87.5% according to the information provided by the parties. The current information provided to the Panel by way of submissions in respect of the Union’s claim for majority membership within the bargaining unit and therefore its request for recognition without a ballot, confirms that there are currently 7 workers employed in the bargaining unit of which 6 are members of the Union, a membership level of 86%. The Panel is therefore satisfied that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.
13) It is the Panel’s duty to consider carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision as to whether any of the qualifying conditions laid down in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled.
14) When invited by the CAC to comment, it was not submitted by the Employer, and nor was there any evidence received by the CAC to suggest that any of the three qualifying conditions stated in paragraph 22(4) (described in paragraph 6 of this decision) apply in this case.
7. Declaration of recognition
15) The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. 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
Axis employees categorised by the Employer as Supervisor and Security Officers and located at 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9SZ
Panel
Mr Rohan Pirani – Panel Chair
Miss Mary Canavan
Mr David Coats.
05 May 2020