Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 19 September 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1363(2023)

19 September 2023

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:

Prospect

and

Alten Limited

1. Introduction

1) Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 24 August 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Alten Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all Alten workers undertaking Edvance work at that site.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “800 Park Avenue, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4TR.” The application was received by the CAC on 3 August 2023 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter dated 4 August 2023. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 10 August 2023 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, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Derek Devereux and Mr Paul Moloney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 8 September 2023. The acceptance period was extended to 6 October 2023 in order to allow time for the Panel to consider the Employer’s response document and the Union’s comments on that response document before arriving at a decision.

2. Issues

4) 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. Summary of the Union’s application

5) In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had approached the Employer informally on 5 June 2023 to request a meeting. The Union said that after the meeting the Employer declined the recognition request. The Union said on 8 August 2023 ^{[footnote 1]} a formal letter was sent and that was rejected by the Employer without a meeting or any request for Acas assistance. A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s response was attached to the application.

6) When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, “No.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7) The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 800. The Union stated that there were 45 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 27 were members of the Union. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union said “we believe the bargaining unit is made up of 45 workers and declare that Prospect have a significant majority of those workers within its membership. Members have unanimously supported efforts to secure recognition. Indicative votes at several meetings and plebiscites. We have held multiple members meetings over several months which shows support for recognition, it is the policy position of the branches decided by members to seek recognition.”

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was that it was a discreet “Alten workforce” at one location. In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “Yes”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union said it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 17 August 2023. The Union said that it was happy for its details to be forwarded to Acas.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 7 August 2023. The Employer stated that it responded on 14 August 2023 stating “We have carefully considered your request but Trade Union recognition is not something we would wish to agree to at this stage. However, it remainsur intention to work with you on any relevant issues that relate to your members. If you require any further discussion on the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.”

11) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 17 August 2023. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, and that it did not agree the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said “as per our correspondence with the CAC on Friday 1/9/2023, we would be grateful to receive a short extension of time to provide a considered and substantive response for the benefit of both Prospect and the CAC.”

12) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties. The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application. The Employer said that there were 39 workers in the proposed bargaining unit as there had been a number of resignations. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13) In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated that it had had six resignations from the identified bargaining unit.

14) When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition the Employer said it had not been provided with any information about the Union members in the bargaining unit and until it had seen evidence that a majority of the bargaining unit “would wish recognition by the Union” it remained of the view that there was “no majority for Collective Bargaining.”

15) When asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and when asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said, “Not Applicable.” The Employer stated that it was happy for its contact details to be forwarded to Acas.

5. The Union’s comments on the Employer’s response

16) The Union in an email dated 7 September 2023 stated that after considering the response from the Employer it re-examined its data in light of the very recent departures. The Union said that after examining the staffing profile of the bargaining unit, as defined by the Union, the Union believed it had 21 members out of 33 staff, and thereby still held a significant majority membership in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union said it could provide the CAC with a list of its members so that this could be compared against the Employer’s list. The Union said that during an informal discussion with the Employer, which took place after the informal request and when the bargaining unit was raised in the formal letter there were no issues raised or challenges to the definition of the bargaining unit by the Employer.

6. Dispensing with the requirement for a membership and support check

17) The Panel decided that an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit was not required in order to determine two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)).

18) The Employer said in its response document that it believed there to be 39 workers in the proposed bargaining unit due to a number of resignations. The Union revisited its figures in light of the resignations and said it now believed there to be 33 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and, of those 33, it had 21 members. Therefore, assuming that the Employer’s list of workers was correct, and all 21 Union members appeared on that list the Union would have a membership level of 53.84% in the proposed bargaining unit.

7. Considerations

19) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

20) The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

21) Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

22) For the reasons set out in paragraph 18 of this decision the Panel has decided 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.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

23) Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that 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 bargaining unit.

24) For the reasons given in paragraph 18 above, the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit stands at least 53.84%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

25) There is currently no contrary evidence available which persuades the panel that Union members are not likely to support recognition of their Union.

26) The Panel has therefore reached the conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

8. Decision

27) For the reasons given in paragraphs 19 - 26 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Derek Devereux

Mr Paul Moloney

19 September 2023

---

1. The copy of the letter provided by the Union with its application form is dated 7 August 2023. ↩