Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 14 July 2020

Case Number: TUR1/1161(2020)

14 July 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

St James Facilities Services Ltd

1. Introduction

1) PCS (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 26 February 2020 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by St James Facilities Services Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “St James Facilities employees working on the BEIS CORE Contract (eg. Locations: 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9SZ).” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 26 February 2020. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 9 March 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 Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted Mr James Tayler, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs Susan Jordan and Mr Gerry Veart. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

3) By a decision dated 23 March 2020, the CAC accepted the application. The parties then reached agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit which comprised “Receptionists at 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SH employed by St James Facilities Services Limited”. This was the same bargaining unit as proposed by the Union in its formal request for recognition and in its subsequent application to the CAC, albeit expressed in slightly different terms. As the parties now agreed the bargaining unit the Panel moved immediately to the question as to whether or not a secret ballot should be held.

2. Issues

4) 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) apply. 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 are 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.

5) 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.

6) On 26 June 2020 the Case Manager wrote to the Employer inviting it to make submissions on the paragraph 22(4) qualifying conditions. In an email dated 9 July 2020 the Employer confirmed that both of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were still members of the Union. The Employer did not argue that one or more of the qualifying conditions applied.

3. Considerations

7) The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that the majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that the majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must then decide if any of the three conditions in paragraph 22(4) are fulfilled. If the Panel considers that any of them are fulfilled it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.

8) This is a rather unusual case in that the proposed bargaining unit which was agreed between the parties, currently comprises a total of two workers. The Schedule sets no minimum on the number of workers in a bargaining unit; it only requires that the Employer, taken with any associated employer or employers, employs at least 21 workers on the day the employer receives the request, or an average of at least 21 workers in the 13 weeks ending with that day the request was received. In its application the Union stated that both of the workers in the then proposed bargaining unit were in membership and the Employer did not challenge this assertion when it completed its response to the application. When asked to comment on the paragraph 22(4) qualifying conditions the Employer confirmed that both workers were still members of the Union. The Employer, although invited to make submissions on the qualifying conditions, did not do so.

9) The Panel is satisfied that the majority of workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the Union.

10) Having so decided, the Panel will now consideration each of the qualifying conditions laid down in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.

11) The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. No evidence was provided by either party that suggested this condition applies. The Panel is satisfied that the condition does not apply.

12) 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. No such evidence was supplied. The Panel concludes that this condition does not apply.

13) 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. The Panel concludes that this condition does not apply.

4. Declaration of recognition

14) The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule are 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 “Receptionists at 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SH employed by St James Facilities Services Limited”.

Panel

Mr James Tayler, Panel Chair

Mrs Susan Jordan

Mr Gerry Veart

14 July 2020