Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 20 September 2018

Case Number: TUR1/1057(2018)

20 September 2018

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992 SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED

The Parties:

UNISON

and

Abbey Healthcare

1. Introduction

1) UNISON (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 21 June 2018 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Abbey Healthcare (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All Abbey Healthcare employees , including home manager, working in the residential care home of Farnworth Care Home, Church St, Bolton BL4 8AG.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Farnworth Care Home, Church St, Bolton BL4 8AG.” The application was received by the CAC on 21 June 2018 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 22 June 2018. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 28 June 2018 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 Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr David Crowe and Mr Gerry Veart. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3) By a decision dated 17 July 2018 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. In its response to the Union’s application the Employer agreed that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate bargaining unit.

4) By a decision dated 23 July 2018 the Panel decided that it was not satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel gave notice pursuant to paragraph 23(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (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 parties were advised that the Panel would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24, before arranging for the holding of the ballot. The notification period elapsed without the Union, or the Union and the Employer jointly, informing the CAC that they did not want the CAC to arrange for the holding of the ballot.

5) Both parties were in agreement that the ballot should take the form of a postal ballot. In a letter to the parties dated 31 July 2018 the Case Manager informed the parties that the Panel had decided, in accordance with paragraph 25(4) of the Schedule, that the ballot should be a postal ballot. The parties were able to reach agreement on access to workers during the balloting period and the CAC was notified accordingly

2. The Ballot

6) On 10 August 2018 Mi-Voice was appointed as the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) to conduct the ballot and the parties were notified accordingly.

7) On 21 August 2018 the Union submitted a complaint to the CAC under paragraph 27 of the Schedule that the Employer had failed to comply with its duties under paragraph 26(3) in relation to the Union’s access to workers. By a letter from the Case Manager dated 21 August 2018 the Union’s complaint was copied to the Employer and its comments invited. By an e-mail dated 21 August 2018 the Employer submitted its response to the Union’s complaint, which was copied to the Union. On 23 August 2018 the Union informed the CAC that it wished to withdraw its complaint.

8) The postal ballot papers were dispatched on 28 August 2018 to be returned to the QIP by no later than noon on 14 September 2018.

9) The QIP reported to the CAC on 14 September 2018 that, of the 115 workers eligible to vote, thirty two (32) ballot papers had been returned; there were no spoilt papers. Twenty eight (28) workers (87.5% of the valid vote) had voted to support the proposal that the Union should be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer. Four (4) workers (12.5% of the valid vote) had voted to reject the proposal. The proportion of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 24.3%.

10) The CAC informed the Employer and the Union on 18 September 2018 of the result of the ballot in accordance with paragraph 29(2) of the Schedule.

3. Declaration that the Union is not entitled to be recognised

11) The ballot did not establish that at least 40% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit supported the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer for the purposes of conducting collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

12) In accordance with paragraph 29(4) of the Schedule, the CAC declares that the Union is not entitled to be recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

Panel

Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chair

Mr David Crowe

Mr Gerry Veart

20 September 2018