Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 28 October 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1402(2024)

03 June 2024

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:

RMT

and

Loram UK LTD

1. Introduction

1)         RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 30 April 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Loram UK LTD (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Shunter, Cleaner, Apprentice, Rog Technician, C4 Overhaul Technician, IM Technician, NMT Technician, Team Leader Routine Maintenance, Team leader projects, Painters, Welders, RGX Technicians, Side Tipper Technicians” based at Loram UK Limited, RTC Business Park, London Road, Derby, DE24 8UP.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 30 April 2024.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 May 2024 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 Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs Susan Jordan, and Mr Paul Morley.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 15 May 2024.  The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 12 June 2024.

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 made its formal request for recognition on 15 April 2024 by way of a letter requesting that the Employer recognise the Union to conduct collective bargaining. The Employer in its response letter, received by the Union on 24 April 2024 rejected the Union’s request for voluntary recognition.

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 100. The Union confirmed that there were 62 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 37 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 stated, “There has been growth in union figure over the past 5 months and a mass meeting of members voted an agreed for the RMT to seek recognition agreement. There has also been survey of the work force and other meetings were the members who work there wish to seek recognition”.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was that “These groups of grades are currently unrepresented in the workplace and have voluntary joined the RMT to achieve collective bargaining within the workplace”. The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.

9)         Finally, the Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 30 April 2024.  

4. Summary of the Employer’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 15 April 2024. The Employer stated it responded to the Union by way of a letter dated 24 April 2024.

11)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 30 April 2024. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union. Asked if it agreed the bargaining unit as set out by the Union the Employer answered “No”.

12)       The Employer stated its objections to the proposed bargaining unit was “I believe that the proposed bargaining unit is missing teams in a similar position at the same grade to those that are proposed”. The Employer confirmed that following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13)       The Employer stated that it employed a total of 175 workers and that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. When asked the reasons for any difference, the Employer stated “80 within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit – do not know the reason for the difference – but it could be because the organisation is bigger than the Union believes. However, I also believe that the bargaining unit should cover 109 hourly paid employees. In either instance I do not believe that the RMT Union have a majority”.

14)       Asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “Our employees have been represented by other Unions in the past and so do not believe that RMT is the biggest Union on-site. However, we are not able to confirm how many employees might be a member of the RMT or any other Union”.

15)       Finally, when asked on whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer confirmed “N/A”.

5. The membership and support check

16)       To assist the determination of 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 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)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the bargaining unit.  It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of the workers in the bargaining unit which had been proposed by the Union in its application form, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit including their full names, dates of birth and job titles (where available). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 14 May 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.

17)       The information requested was received by the CAC from both the parties on 16 May 2024. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

18)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 80 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 45 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of members in the proposed bargaining unit was 44, a membership level of 55.00%.

19)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 17 May 2024 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership check

20)       In a letter to the Case Manager dated 22 May 2024 the Employer stated “…In response to the tests set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule, we note that you have requested a list from the RMT Union of its “paid-up Union members”, however the information provided by the RMT Union does not include evidence that they are paid-up members. The list could therefore simply be a list of employees and their date of births, whether they are paid up or not and even whether they want the Union to represent them or not. We would therefore request that an independent ballot be conducted to confirm the level of RMT Union support within any agreed final bargaining unit within Loram UK Ltd. In addition, whilst we recognise that this request is around the bargaining unit, as outlined in the Union proposal, we believe that actual bargaining unit will be larger than this”.

21)       In an email to the Case Manager dated 21 May 2024 the Union stated, “From an RMT position I am more than happy that we have achieved the relevant requirements under Paragraph 36 of the schedule. Happy with the figures that you have been provided and the figures and the report that you have produced and don’t have any issues there”.

7. Union’s comments on the Employer’s response

22)       The Employer’s response was copied to the Union and its comments invited.  In an email dated 24 May 2024 the Union stated that “…unless we shared members direct debit details and confirmation of when they last paid their contributions that would be impossible to prove and we as a Union could use the same argument in reverse that we are not taking the word of the company about the amount of employees in the respective grade groups… we have reached the required thresholds and provided the information that we have been requested to do by the CAC…If you or the panel have anything we can provide to show that our members are fully paid up members then we would be more than prepared to provide it to the CAC if we are legally able to share it but of course not with Loram”.

8. Considerations

23)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision are satisfied.  The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision. 

24)       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 paragraphs 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)

25)       In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule the Panel must determine whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  In this case the membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 above) showed that 55.00% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union.  As stated in paragraph 17 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel has therefore 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)

26)       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.   In its comments the Employer stated that the Union had simply provided a list of names and dates of birth without any evidence as to their membership status, but the Panel takes the view that the same could be said of the information that the Employer provided for the purposes of the check.  When conducting the check of membership and support to assess the requirements under paragraph 36 the Panel relies on the good faith and honesty of both parties when it comes to submitting the information necessary for the tests to be undertaken.  The Panel has not been provided with any evidence that casts doubt on the veracity of the information provided in this case.            

27)       The Panel notes from the membership check that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (55.00%) are members of the Union.  In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf.  On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

9. Decision

28)       For the reasons given above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mrs Susan Jordan

Mr Paul Morley

03 June 2024