Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 4 April 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1288(2022)

10 February 2023

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

The Parties:

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

(RMT)

and

First Transpennine Express (TPE)

1. Introduction

1) National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 15 September 2022 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by First Transpennine Express (TPE) (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “TPE control grades consisting of Train Service Controller, Service Delivery Controllers, Customer Experience Managers, and Customer Information Controllers. All of whom sit under the Duty Control Manager”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “TPE Control in the Network Rail Regional Operating Centre at Ashburys, Manchester”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 15 September 2022. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 20 September 2022 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 of Mr Tariq Sadiq, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Sean McIlveen and Ms Stephanie Marston. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3) By a decision dated 21 October 2022 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. As no agreement was reached, the 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. A virtual hearing was held on 19 December 2022 and subsequently a decision was issued on 19 January 2023 where the Panel determined that the appropriate bargaining unit was “Customer Information Controllers, Duty Customer Experience Managers and Service Delivery Controllers.” This was the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union as clarified at the hearing on 19 December 2022.

2. Issues

4) On 26 January 2023, the Panel, satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot.

5) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 1 February 2023. The CAC was not notified by both the parties that they did not want the ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2). The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

3. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

6) By a letter to the Case Manager dated 1 February 2023 the Employer stated, “We believe that a postal ballot would be most appropriate due to the shift pattern arrangements in place within the two teams”.

4. Union’s submissions on the form of ballot

7) By an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 1 February 2023 the Union stated “A workplace ballot would be our preference as this would ensure maximum participation amongst the workers who all work within the same vicinity. It is our believe (sic) that both ourselves and TPE management should encourage workers to exercise their democratic choice and we feel a workplace ballot will best serve this purpose with the hope that all workers will have their say. We note that arrangements can be made for those on leave or sick.  Furthermore, we do not believe a workplace ballot will be affected by unfairness or malpractice.  Neither do we believe there would be a problem regards associated costs and practicalities. You cannot put a price on democracy after all!”

5. Considerations

8) When determining the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:

(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;

(b) costs and practicality;

(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

9) The parties have put forward two different types of ballots for the Panel to consider. The Employer has argued for a postal ballot whereas the Union has submitted that the ballot should be a workplace ballot.

10) The Panel, having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, has decided that, on the grounds of cost and practicality, the appropriate form of ballot in the circumstances would be a postal ballot. It is the Panel’s view that it would not be cost effective to conduct a workplace ballot given the relatively small size of the determined bargaining unit, which currently stands at 30 workers.

6. Decision

11) The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.

12) The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Panel

Mr Tariq Sadiq, Panel Chair

Ms Stephanie Marston

Mr Sean McIlveen

10 February 2023