Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 21 September 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1343(2023)

21 September 2023

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) Union

and

Mitie Limited

1. Introduction

1) The Public and Commercial Services Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 23 June 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Mitie Group Limited ^{[footnote 1]} (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprised of “Security personnel for Mitie at 22 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2EG. For the purposes of this definition ‘staff’ covers the following job roles (or similar titles in these areas of work): Guarding Manager, Assistant Guarding Manager, Deputy Manager, Assistant Deputy Manager and Security Officer/Guard.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “22 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2EG.”

2) It is important to note that the role of ‘Guarding Manager’ and ‘Deputy Guarding Manager’ have been renamed as ‘Site Security Manager’ and ‘Deputy Site Security Manager’. Both the Employer and the Union agreed that these were changes in name only and that there were no changes to the substance of either role as a result of the change in name. For ease of reference the Panel will refer to the roles of ‘Guarding Manager’/ ‘Deputy Guarding Manager’ in this decision.

3) The application was received by the CAC on 23 June 2023 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 30 June 2023 which was copied to the Union.

4) 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 Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi, and Mr Nicholas Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

5) By a decision dated 13 July 2023 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 but no agreement was reached. Both 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 for a hearing held by virtual means on 7 September 2023. In a decision dated 12 September 2023 the Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was that proposed by the Union in its application, namely: “Security personnel for Mitie at 22 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2EG. For the purposes of this definition ‘staff’ covers the following job roles (or similar titles in these areas of work): Guarding Manager, Assistant Guarding Manager ^{[footnote 2]}, Deputy Manager, Assistant Deputy Manager and Security Officer/Guard.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “22 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2EG.”.

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 determined 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:

(i) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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) provides that “membership evidence” for these purposes 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 and submission that it should be recognised without a ballot

7) In a letter dated 12 September 2023 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. The Union responded by way of letter dated 13 September 2023 in which it stated that:

• The membership check carried out by the CAC in July demonstrated that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union at nearly 80%.

• The Union also provided the joining date for each member, which dated from 2021 to 2023. They joined with the purpose of the Union gaining collective bargaining rights.

• Both the Employer and the Union had stated that given the membership levels in the bargaining unit, they did not believe that a ballot was necessary.

4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s claim that it should be recognised without a ballot

8) The Union’s letter of 13 September 2023 was copied to the Employer and the Employer was invited to make submissions in relation to the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and in relation to the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule. However, no such submissions were received by the deadline imposed.

5. Considerations

9) 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 to be 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 those specific conditions is fulfilled, it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.

10) The membership and support check conducted on 11 July 2023 confirmed that the level of union membership in the proposed bargaining unit was 78.95%. Although invited to comment on the results of the check at the time it was conducted, the Employer elected not to do so nor did it seek to argue that the Union no longer enjoyed majority membership in the determined bargaining unit. Accordingly, the Panel accepts that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

11) The Panel has considered 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.

Paragraph 22(4) (a)

12) The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. In this case neither party has submitted evidence that holding a secret ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations. The Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (b)

13) The second condition is that 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 to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The CAC has no such evidence and this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (c)

14) The third condition is that 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 to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced, and this condition does not apply.

6. 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 none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore 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 “Security personnel for Mitie at 22 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2EG. For the purposes of this definition ‘staff’ covers the following job roles (or similar titles in these areas of work): Guarding Manager, Assistant Guarding Manager ^{[footnote 3]}, Deputy Manager, Assistant Deputy Manager and Security Officer/Guard.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “22 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2EG.”.

7. Panel

Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Mr Nicholas Childs

21 September 2023

---

1. In a letter dated 6 July 2023 the Union requested that the name of the Employer be corrected from Mitie Group Limited (which is not a legal entity) to Mitie Limited, which the Employer had previously accepted [in case number TUR1/1272(2022) – paragraph 9 of Decision dated 16 March 2023] is the employing entity. This amendment was permitted. ↩

2. These roles have subsequently been named ‘Site Security Manager’ and ‘Deputy Site Security Manager’. Both the Employer and the Union agreed that these were changes in name only and that there were no changes to either role as a result of the change in name. ↩

3. See f/n2. ↩