Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 14 January 2020

Case Number: TUR1/1092 (2019)

13 January 2020

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

UNISON

and

Cornerstone Community Care

1. Introduction

1) UNISON (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 05 March 2019 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Cornerstone Community Care (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All employees with the exception of Relief staff, Seasonal staff, Foster carers, Shared live carers, Fixed term contract staff, Senior Leadership Team (CEO, Leader of Quality, Leader of Cornerstone Foundation, Leader of Strategy Implementation, Leader of Cornerstone Central). For clarity the request for recognition does not include the Cornerstone Foundation”. The location of the bargaining unit was stated in the application as “Various locations across Scotland”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 6 March 2019. The Employer submitted a response dated 12 March 2019 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 Chairman of the CAC established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Kenny Miller as chair of the Panel and, as Members Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Gerry Veart. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.

3) By a decision dated 18 July 2019 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. No agreement was reached on the appropriate bargaining unit and a hearing to determine the issue was held on 9 October 2019. The Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was:

“All employees which in includes Fixed Term Contract staff (whether on substantive contacts or not) and the Cornerstone Foundation, with the exception of Relief Staff, Seasonal Staff, Foster Carers, Shared Live Carers and the Senior Leadership Team (CEO, Leader of Quality, Leader of Cornerstone Foundation, Leader of Strategy Implementation, Leader of Cornerstone Central.”

4) As the determined bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of the Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Schedule) to determine whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

2. Issues

5) Paragraph 20 of the Schedule states that where an application has, as in the present case, been accepted under paragraph 11 and the CAC has determined an appropriate bargaining unit that differs from the proposed bargaining unit then the CAC must, within the decision period, decide whether the application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. The tests that the Panel must consider under these paragraphs are:-

• is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 44)

• is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 45(a))

• are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition? (paragraph 45(b))

• is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 46)

• has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? (paragraphs 47 to 49)

6) By letter dated 23 October 2019 the CAC invited both parties for their views on whether the application remained valid following the determination of the bargaining unit.

3. Views of the Union

7) By letter to the CAC dated 30 October 2019, the Union noted that the determined bargaining unit differed from that originally proposed by the Union only by the inclusion of Fixed Term Contract staff (whether on substantive contacts or not) and employees in the Cornerstone Foundation. The Union’s understanding, from the evidence provided by the Employer at the hearing (on 9th October 2019) was that most Fixed Term Contract staff were on substantive contracts and were included in the numbers provided during the CAC’s original admissibility checks. It was also the Union’s understanding that the Cornerstone Foundation comprised 12 posts of which only 6 were occupied. The Union therefore inferred that, whereas the proposed bargaining unit contained 1606 employees, the revised bargaining unit was likely to comprise no more than 1640 employees which was a difference of 2%.

8) The Union asked the Panel to find that the changes to the relevant bargaining unit were minimal and therefore the effect on the percentage of Union membership within the new bargaining unit, and the percentage in the new bargaining unit in favour of recognition would also be minimal. The original admissibility checks established that there was considerably more than 10% in Union membership; and the Panel had concluded that the majority favoured collective bargaining. The Union contended that for these reasons the Panel should find that there was 10% Union membership within the new bargaining unit and that there was a majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition.

9) The Union stated that if due to the significant passage of time since the Panel’s decision to admit the application, the Panel considered it could not answer whether there was 10 % Union membership within the new bargaining unit or whether a majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognin, then the CAC’s checks should be re-applied to the new bargaining unit.

10) The Union confirmed that: there was no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit; that there was no competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covered any workers in the new bargaining unit and that there had been no previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit.

4. Views of the Employer

11) By letter to the CAC dated 30 October 2019, the Employer confirmed that there was no other agreement covering the workers identified in the new bargaining unit nor was it aware of a competing application from another Union for that group of workers.

12) As to whether 10% of the new bargaining unit were members of the Union, the Employer stated that it did not specifically track Union membership numbers. The Employer felt that the determined bargaining unit altered the number of employees in the relevant bargaining unit significantly. It was confident that the majority of the workers within the new bargaining unit would not be likely to favour recognition for the following reasons.

13) Union membership density in the new bargaining unit was now significantly reduced as the bargaining unit had now been expanded to include workers in the fundraising team (the Cornerstone Foundation) and workers on Fixed term Contracts.

14) Since the number of employees in the relevant bargaining unit had increased, the likelihood of a larger percentage of the bargaining unit rejecting recognition was increased. Before the Panel’s determination of the appropriate bargaining unit the Employer had submitted in response to the admissibility checks that at best it estimated only 40.39% of the employees would be likely to favour recognition meaning 59.61% before the expansion of the bargaining unit did not favour recognition. The figure for this now could be higher than 60%.

15) The Employer stated that it had been contacted by several colleagues who had cancelled their Union membership. There was also a growing number of colleagues who had informed the Employer that they did not support the Union’s on-going negative campaigning which appeared to be designed to damage the Company’s good reputation and as a result they would not welcome another collective bargaining agreement.

16) Finally, the Employer like the Union suggested that the CAC should repeat the check undertaken at the admissibility stage against the new bargaining unit.

17) To assist the determination of the two admissibility tests under paragraph 45(a) and 45(b) of Schedule A1, namely whether 10% of the workers in the new bargaining unit are members of the Union and whether a majority of the workers in this bargaining unit are likely to favour recognition of the Union, the Panel instructed that the Case Manager carry out checks on the level of union membership within the determined bargaining unit and the number of workers who had indicated support for recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

18) It was agreed with both parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the determined bargaining unit and its petition signed by workers not in support of recognition and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid up members, providing their names, addresses and dates of birth (where possible) and its petition signed by workers in support of recognition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petitions would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in the CAC’s letter to the parties 8 November 2019.

19) The Case Manager’s report of the results of the membership and support check dated 27 November 2019, attached at appendix 1 of this decision, was issued to the Panel and to the parties for comments on the same date. The Panel was satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

5. Union’s comments on membership /support check

20) By its letter to the CAC dated 3 December 2019, the Union provided its comments on the CAC’s report of the membership and support check. The Union stated that both parties would agree that the 10% Union membership within the new bargaining unit test was satisfied.

21) Regarding whether the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition the Union submitted the following points in support of its case.

22) The Panel could infer from the CAC’s report that the test was satisfied as it could be presumed that all members of the Union supported collective bargaining. The UNISON rule book committed members to ‘improve the pay and conditions of members’ and to ‘participate in joint negotiating machinery’. Even if this was a rebuttable presumption, the Employer had failed to do so, beyond 27 feedback forms.

23) The report showed evidence of Union membership of 37.87% with a further 8.01% of non- Members supporting Union recognition. Combined, this equated to evidence of 45.88% support for collective bargaining.

24) The Union contended that in the context of the nature of the workforce, and the industrial context of the application, sufficient numbers of non-Union members were in favour of trade union recognition, and it was therefore probable that more than 50% of the bargaining unit would support trade union recognition. The Cornerstone workforce was primarily low paid women who delivered personal social care in the homes of supported people. Many employees worked part-time, and the combination of low pay and low hours placed many employees in ‘in-work poverty’. Trade Union membership was considered unaffordable by some employees, however they nevertheless supported trade union recognition as the means by which their terms and conditions could be improved.

25) Cornerstone, in common with the rest of the care industry, had high staff turnover due to the low wages and unsocial hours. Some employees did not see themselves remaining in employment long enough to join the trade union. They nevertheless supported trade union recognition as a means to improve pay and conditions.

26) The Union considered that the numbers reported by the CAC were indicative of majority support for trade union recognition, given the barriers to trade union membership and recruitment put in place by the Employer since they withdrew from the voluntary recognition agreement over a year ago. UNISON stewards had all trade union facilities withdrawn and so were prevented from recruiting and representing members as they had done previously. Under the previous recognition agreement, new employees were provided with union application forms in their joining packs. The Employer had withdrawn this facility.

27) The ‘union busting’ postcards campaign was delivered against a background of anti-trade union communication from Cornerstone, discouraging its employees from supporting the Union, and without trade Union officers having the same access to employees. In such a hostile environment, 133 employees who were not Union members, completing and returning a post card was a significant indicator of underlying support for recognition of the Union. In contrast, the Employer could only evidence 126 employees in total who were not Union members and who opposed collective bargaining. If the majority had opposed collective bargaining, it would be expected that the Employer’s campaign would have evidenced that.

28) The Union noted that 27 of its members had signed the Employer’s petition and a further 10 non-members had signed both the Employer’s and Union’s petitions given contrasting views.

29) Of the 1,661 employees in the determined bargaining unit, the Panel knew the views of 888 employees who were either:

• UNISON members,

• or had completed UNISON postcards,

• or had completed the Cornerstone survey.

Of the 888 whose views had been established, 85.8% supported collective bargaining which equated to more than 4 out of every 5 employees continuing to be in favour of collective bargaining. Therefore, the Union asked that the Panel found, on the evidence as a whole, that a majority of the workers constituting the new bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union and to accept the validity tests had been met.

6. Employer’s comments on membership/report check

30) By letter to the CAC dated 4 December 2019 the Employer provided its comments on the CAC’s report of the membership and support checks. The Employer accepted that the Union had met the 10% threshold for Union membership within the new bargaining unit.

31) The Employer contended that the majority of the workers within the new bargaining unit did not favour recognition of the Union. The Union would have to recruit 200 new members to attain a majority membership level within the new bargaining unit, presuming that all Union members supported recognition of the Union, an assumption that the Employer did not agree with. The Union currently fell considerably short of 51% majority with only 629 a level of 37.87% in the determined bargaining unit. The Union’s membership levels had not remained static but had decreased. The Union had lost support.

32) The decline in the Union’s membership levels demonstrated this. Despite a sustained campaign for Union membership including readily available freepost “Union Busting” post cards, the Union’s membership was falling. The Union had only 147 (8.85% of the bargaining unit) workers’ signatures on its petition. Between May 2019 and December 2019 membership had reduced from 226 to 189. Membership cancellations had increased by 16%. This reduction in Union membership contradicted the Union’s claim in its previous e-mail to the CAC dated 7 June 2019 that there was an upward trajectory of Union membership since de-recognition in November 2018. The Union’s own figures demonstrated a downward trajectory by a reduction of 45 members. This was indicative of diminishing support or outright opposition to recognition of the Union by Cornerstone Colleagues.

33) Only 14 of the Union’s members (less than 1%) had signed the Union’s petition. If the presumption was that being a Union member was indicative of support for recognition then it could be expected that a significant number of these members would sign the Union’s petition, especially as Union members were actively encouraged to do so in letters from the Union sent to their home addresses but 99% of the Union’s members did not sign their petition.

34) In contrast 165 (9.93%) workers had completed the Employer’s survey of which 27 were Union members expressing that they did not want Union recognition. This decreased the Union’s members support within the new bargaining unit to 36.2% of the new bargaining unit i.e. 629 members reduced to support from 602 of those 629.

35) The Employer asked the Panel to consider the Union’s evidence of support in the context of the scale of the Union’s campaign for support which contrasted with, in its view, restrained approach by solely keeping colleagues informed of the CAC’s process updates. However, the Union’s actions included: repeated Union communications stressing the importance of signing the Union’s freepost petition post cards; regularly urging Union members to urge non-Union members to sign its post cards; multiple posts on social media sites and letters to home addresses between January and February 2019 to persuade workers to join the Union.

36) The Employer anticipated that some employees would have become Union members for litigation purposes/reasons as the Union had encouraged workers to complete case forms to lodge inducement claims at the employment tribunal. The Employer contended that workers became Union members for a diverse number of reasons unrelated to Union recognition.

37) In conclusion, the Employer argued that the Union had extrapolated or artificially inflated assumptions and had failed to provide the CAC with reliable proof that a majority of workers were likely to favour recognition of the Union.

7. Considerations

38) The Panel is satisfied on the evidence available that the application is valid in terms of the tests laid down in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 49 of the Schedule, namely that there is no existing recognition agreement in force, that there is no competing application and that there has been no previous CAC application in respect of the new bargaining unit. The remaining tests before the Panel are whether, in accordance with paragraphs 45(a) and (b) of the Schedule, 10% of the workers constituting the new bargaining unit are members of the union and whether a majority of the workers constituting the new bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

8. Paragraph 45(a)

39) The membership and support check established that there was a membership level of 37.87% and this was not challenged by the Employer. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the test set out in paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule is met and that at least 10% of the workers constituting the new bargaining unit are members of the Union.

9. Paragraph 45(b)

40) Under paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule, an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the determined bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

41) At this stage the Panel has a duty to determine whether there is currently a majority of workers within the determined bargaining unit who are likely to support recognition. The test is not of actual support. The Schedule allows for the testing of actual support of recognition of the Union if the application meets the requirements of the holding of a ballot at a later stage of the statutory application process.

42) The Union has shown a membership density of 37.87% plus evidence of a small percentage of non-Union member support from its own petition, (8.01%). The evidence of non-member support is reduced by 0.60% when we take into account the 10 non-Union member workers who had also indicated on the Employer’s survey that they did not support recognition of the Union, and then the evidence of Union membership as indicative of a workers support for recognition of the Union is reduced by 1.63% when we take into account the 27 Union members who indicated on the employer’s survey that they were not in support of recognition of the Union. This leaves the Union with an overall support level of 43.65% in the determined bargaining unit which is just 0.35% short of the level of support the Union was able to demonstrate in its proposed bargaining unit at the admissibility stage of the application.

43) The Employer has asserted to the Panel that we should not assume in this case that the Union membership is an indicator of support for collective bargaining, considering the turnout of workers for completing its survey with minimal campaigning efforts compared with the number of Union pledge cards returned in the context of what it considered to be a strong campaign effort from the Union. The Employer also asserted that the decrease in Union membership could be taken to indicate a direct opposition to Union recognition.

44) However, the Employer has not provided evidence of its assertions sufficient to convince the Panel that there has been a surge in support of the Employer not recognising the Union for collective bargaining even if just by way of the relevant bargaining unit being expanded by the Panel to additional workers. The Union on the other hand, despite the expansion of the size of the relevant bargaining unit has maintained its overall support. If the numerical calculations alone were to be taken into account in this regard the Employer’s petition has only been able to show evidence of the views of less than 9.93% of the determined bargaining unit with only around 7.59% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit indicating a NO preference for collective bargaining. The Panel cannot take either parties’ anecdotal reports as evidence. Indeed, in the view of the Panel there is insufficient evidence to require us to conclude that this is a case that contradicts its extensive experience in industrial relations, that being that membership of a trade union is indicative of support for that union to be recognised by its employer for the purposes of collective bargaining on the worker’s behalf.

45) There has been continued speculation by both parties as regards the preferences of the workers in the previously proposed bargaining unit and now the current determined bargaining unit. Neither party has presented the Panel with any explicit new evidence to support its case in respect of this arm of the required tests. Ultimately, the Panel is required to reach a decision on the basis of the evidence provided at the time it is required. We are satisfied that the membership check conducted by the Case Manager was carried out in a fair and impartial manner. It goes into considerable detail as regards the level of Union membership and the outcomes of the Union’s pledge cards and the Employer’s survey. The check provides hard evidence of the status and views of a significant number of workers in the determined bargaining unit. There are clearly workers who are opposed to Union recognition and nearly 10% have indicated that fact in the Employer’s survey. Equally, however, in one way or another around 44% have expressed a preference for Union involvement either through Union membership or by signing a Union pledge card. We do not know the intentions of the remaining members of the determined bargaining unit (over 40%). On balance, the Panel believes that it is reasonable to assume that some percentage of that number are likely to favour union recognition and it is a far smaller leap to achieve a majority for recognition than the opposite. Ultimately, our task is a matter of judgment not science. Given that the statutory test is based on likelihood the Panel is of the view that once all the speculative comment is stripped away the evidence provided in the Membership and Support Check supports our conclusion that this is a case where the new bargaining unit is not invalid within the terms of paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule.

46) For the reasons set out above the Panel is therefore satisfied that the majority of workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit and that the test set out in paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule is met.

10. Decision

47) The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC will therefore proceed with the application.

Panel

Professor Kenny Miller - Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Gerry Veart

13 January 2020

11. APPENDIX 1

TUR1/1092(2019)

Application by UNISON for recognition under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of Cornerstone Community Care – Validity Tests under paragraph 45.

Report of a check to establish the level of Union membership in the determined bargaining unit, the number of workers in the bargaining unit who had signed the Union’s petition and the number of workers who had signed the Employer’s counter petition.

1) To assist in the application of the validity tests set out in paragraph 45 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act, the Panel proposed independent checks of the level of Union membership in the determined bargaining unit and the number of workers in the unit who had signed a petition supporting recognition of the Union. The Union provided a list of Union members in the determined bargaining unit, and a copy of its petition. The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 14 November 2019. The Employer provided a list of workers and its petition in the determined bargaining unit also on 14 November 2019. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter from the Case Manager to both parties dated 8 November 2019.

2) These checks were made on the basis of the bargaining unit determined by the Panel, that is to say:

“All employees which in includes Fixed Term Contract staff (whether on substantive contacts or not) and the Cornerstone Foundation, with the exception of Relief Staff, Seasonal Staff, Foster Carers, Shared Live Carers and the Senior Leadership Team (CEO, Leader of Quality, Leader of Cornerstone Foundation, Leader of Strategy Implementation, Leader of Cornerstone Central)”.

This differs from the bargaining unit originally proposed by the Union by the inclusion of Fixed Term Contract staff and the Cornerstone Foundation.

3) The Union’s membership list consisted of 774 names. The list was in the form of a spreadsheet and contained the following headings: RMS, Forename, Surname, Address 1, Address 2, Town, County, Postcode, and Date of Birth.

4) The Union’s petition was in the form of pledge cards which was split into two sections. The left section contained the following statement:

“Union busting is disgusting! I support trade union recognition for UNISON, and ask Cornerstone to overturn their decision to derecognise my union”.

Beneath this were the headings:

Name, Signature, Workplace, and #CornerstoneUnionBusting

On the right hand section was the name of the Union official and address to return these pledge cards to. Beneath this was the following statement:

“No-one at Cornerstone and only Ian Fitzpatrick at UNISON will have sight of this postcard. This postcard will indicate support for UNISON to independent Scottish Government bodies in our fight for recognition in Cornerstone”.

Running across the bottom of the pledge cards was the statement “Join online at joinunison.org or call 0800 171 2193”.

The post mark dates on 14 of the pledge cards ranged from 6 January 2019 to 26 March 2019. The remaining pledge cards did not have post mark dates on them.

6) The Employer provided a spreadsheet which consisted of 1,661 workers in the bargaining unit. The headings on the spreadsheet were as follows: First Name, Last Name, Date of Birth, Address 1, Address 2, Address 3, City, County and Postcode

7) The Employer’s petition was 207 individual feedback forms. On each sheet Feedback Form was the title and beneath this was the following statement:

“We want you to have your say and provide feedback on the issue of union recognition: Please complete the questions and return in the pre- paid envelope by Friday 22 February 2019”.

Beneath this was three questions to answer yes or no to:

1. “Do you want Unison to represent you in collective bargaining on pay, hours of work and holidays?

2. Should union recognition be decided by a majority of Cornerstone colleagues?

3. Unison is proposing to exclude certain categories of worker: relief colleagues, seasonal colleagues and fixed term colleagues. If union recognition is adopted, should it include all Cornerstone colleagues?”

Question 4 read: “How do you want us to communicate with you in future?” The individuals were given the option to tick the box next to the following statements, including: “Personal email; Work email; Home address”.

Question 5 provided a box for the individual to include any other comments. Beneath this was the statement: “Please enter your name and date. Please note, your answers will be confidential and will not be disclosed to Unison”.

Underneath this was “Name” and “Date”. Beneath this was the statement “Thank you for sharing your views”.

The majority of feedback forms were dated from 12 February 2019 to 10 April 2019, with 10 dated 13 November 2019; one was not dated.

8) No additional validity checks were carried out to verify the information supplied by the parties.

9) The check that was undertaken was:

a) a comparison of the names on the union membership list with the list of workers in the determined bargaining unit supplied by the Employer,

b) a comparison of the names/signatures on the petition with the same list of workers and

c) a comparison of the names/signatures on the Employer’s petition with the same list of workers and against the union membership list.

The results are described in the following paragraphs

10) Result of the check of the level of Union membership in the agreed/determined bargaining unit.

a)	Number of workers on the list provided by the Employer:	1661
b)	Number of Union members on the list provided by the Union:	774
c)	Number of Union members not appearing on the Employer’s list:	145
d)	Number of names common to both lists:	629
e)	Proportion of Union members in the bargaining unit:	37.87%

11) Result of the check of the Union’s petition against the number of workers in the determined bargaining unit.

a)	Number of workers on the list provided by the Employer:	1661
b)	Number of names/signatures on the Union’s petition:	208
c)	Number of names/signatures not appearing on Employer’s list:	60
d)	Number of names/signatures that are unreadable, duplicates etc:	1
e)	Number of names/signatures common to both lists:	147
f)	Proportion of workers in the proposed bargaining unit who have signed the petition:	8.85%
g)	Number of petition names/signatories who are union members:	14
h)	Proportion of workers in the proposed bargaining unit who have signed the petition and are union members:	0.84%
i)	Number of petition names/signatories who are non-members:	133
j)	Proportion of workers in the proposed bargaining unit who have signed the petition and are non-members:	8.01%

12) Result of the comparison of the names/signatures on the Employer’s petition appearing on the Union’s membership list and the Union’s petition.

a)	Number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit on the list provided by the Employer:	1661
b)	Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s petition:	207
c)	Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s petition that were unreadable, duplicates:	0
d)	Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s petition, who did not appear on the Employer’s list for the workers in the determined bargaining unit:	42
e1)	Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s petition who do not want the Union to represent them for collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays in the determined bargaining unit:	165
e2)	The above as a proportion of the determined bargaining unit:	9.93%
f1)	Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s petition who do not want the Union to represent them for collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays in the determined bargaining unit. They did not sign the Union’s petition and are not Union members:	126
f2)	The above as a proportion of the determined bargaining unit:	7.59%
g1)	Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s petition who do not want the Union to represent them for collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays in the determined bargaining unit. They did not sign the Union’s petition and are Union members:	27
g2)	The above as a proportion of the determined bargaining unit	1.63%
h1)	Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s petition who do not want the Union to represent them for collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays in the determined bargaining unit. They did sign the Union’s petition and are not Union members:	10
h2)	The above as a proportion of the determined bargaining unit:	0.60%
i1)	Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s petition who do not want the Union to represent them for collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays in the determined bargaining unit. They did sign the Union’s petition and are Union members:	2
i2)	The above as a proportion of the determined bargaining unit:	0.12%

Sharmin Khan

Case Manager

27 November 2019