Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 30 September 2020

Case Number: TUR1/1179(2020)

30 September 2020

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:

UNISON

and

West Sussex County Council

1. Introduction

1) UNISON (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 5 June 2020 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by West Sussex County Council (the Employer/Council) for a bargaining unit comprising “the following pay groups within West Sussex County Council: HAY; SMG4; and Public Health/Agenda for Change (AfC)”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “various office locations around the county of West Sussex, with the vast majority located within one of five key Office hub locations: Chichester, Horsham. Worthing, Bognor, Crawley”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 5 June 2020. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC which was received on 30 June 2020 and 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 Charles Wynn-Evans, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Len Aspell and Ms Fiona Wilson. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

2. Issues

3) 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. The Union’s application

4) In its application the Union said that it had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 21 September 2018. The Employer did not agree to voluntary recognition but instead proposed a period of negotiation/dialogue to last three months until early January 2019, to cover recognition and a number of other items not connected to pay, after which it would make a decision. This decision was not forthcoming and the next pay award was applicable from 1 July 2020. Accordingly, the Union wished to make rapid progress and, albeit reluctantly, to use the statutory recognition process after, in its view, giving the voluntary process ample time and patience but seeing no outcome. A copy of the Union’s letter of 21 September 2018 was enclosed with the application.

5) According to the Union, there were in excess of 20,000 workers employed by the Employer with 482 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 230 members within the proposed bargaining unit. Asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union said that it was already recognised for all terms and conditions, collective agreements and organisational change for workers in the proposed bargaining unit except for the annual pay award. This was currently determined by the Chief Executive. The Union was nominally consulted, but there was no system of negotiation or collective bargaining. In 2018 the former Chef Executive instituted a highly controversial pay award which sought to pay less than the NJC award (which had been applied to other employees in the council), to link future pay awards to performance, to link incremental progression to performance, and to seek individual workers to sign a variation of contract letter to derecognise the Union. On the Union’s account, this caused considerable outrage amongst the staff group and the Union’s density in the group increased from 30% to 48% very quickly. During the July 2019 pay award the Union surveyed its members and 96% wanted it to continue to the CAC to push for statutory recognition if it could not be agreed voluntarily. This included an 80% majority of non-members. Shortly after this, the Chief Executive and Head of HR left the organisation by mutual agreement. The Union believed its current density of 48% and the evidence obtained in 2019 demonstrated high support for it to play a role in bargaining local pay for the proposed bargaining unit.

6) When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that the Employer itself had selected these grades of staff for the purposes of providing an annual, local pay award and set this out in its statutory pay policy of the time. They are treated as a homogenous group for the purpose of the pay consultation, receiving the same consultation information and having the award applied at the same time (I July). This occurred in 2018 and 2019. The Union also explained that it was recognised for all staff at WSCC (excluding fire fighters and teachers) and was the only trade union recognised. The Employer was within National Joint Council bargaining arrangements for the vast majority of its staff. However, 482 were on local pay arrangements. These only provided for consultation with the Union and not negotiation/collective bargaining, in establishing the annual pay award which was determined by the Chief Executive. The Union was recognised to negotiate/bargain in respect of a range of other terms and conditions for staff in these pay groups but not for the determination of the annual pay award. The Union confirmed that the proposed bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

7) Asked if there was an existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that it was recognised outside the bargaining unit in respect of NJC workers - although this was not codified in a written document, but had been in place for many decades. The Union was also recognised for the proposed bargaining unit as well, but not for the purpose of establishing the annual pay award. This application sought to ‘top up’ its recognition so that it extended to the annual pay award process. That the Union was recognised was referred to in employees’ contracts of employment in both this smaller bargaining unit in respect of which the Union was seeking ‘top-up’ recognition, as well as in other employees’ contracts covered by the national NJC pay award.

8) Finally, the Union said there had not been a previous application in respect of this proposed bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit and that it copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 5 June 2020.

4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s application

9) The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s formal request for recognition on or shortly after 21 September 2018. When asked what its response was, the Employer stated that it replied to the Union on 15 October 2018 (copy enclosed). Its response was to decline the request and to seek a period of dialogue with a view to reaching a voluntary agreement. Constructive discussions took place and progress stalled as the relationship with the Union deteriorated. Progress recommenced over the summer 2019 and wording of a draft agreement was reached in principle, but progress paused during Autumn 2019 with the departure of the former Chief Executive and the former Director of Human Resources and Organisational Change. Constructive progress had been made since the appointment of the new Chief Executive in January 2020 and Director of Human Resources and Organisational Change in March 2020. A draft recognition agreement, including a defined bargaining unit, had been agreed with Unison. The general terms and conditions for the workforce, were set by the Council’s Governance Committee. On 20 May 2020 the Council’s Governance Committee considered a report seeking authority for the Director of Human Resources and Organisational Change to enter into a voluntary recognition agreement with the Union to include recognition rights for employees on HAY and Public Health/Agenda for Change grades for pay reviews. Following deferment of the item at the meeting on 20 May 2020 the matter was reconsidered at a Governance Committee meeting on 22 June 2020 where it was decided to decline the voluntary recognition request and allow the CAC process to continue.

10) When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form directly from the Union, the Employer stated this was on 5 May 2020 ^{[footnote 1]} and that the subsequent request for a delay to allow for further consideration at the Council’s Governance Committee was made on 22 June 2020. The Employer confirmed that it had agreed the proposed bargaining unit prior to having received a copy of the completed application form and that this was one that differed to the one referred to in Union’s application to the CAC. Asked whether it agreed the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered “No” and it set out its objections thereto. It explained that the voluntary recognition agreement that was referred to the County Council’s Governance Committee did not include workers on SMG4 grades. In its application to the CAC, the Union had included these workers to which the Employer objected. SMG4 workers had certain terms and conditions determined through national bargaining by the Joint Negotiating Committee for Local Authority Chief Officers and others, including pay, were determined locally. This was a different national negotiating body than that which applied to Hay or Agenda for Change workers.

11) The Employer stated that it employed 18,296 workers. The Employer did not agree with the Union’s figure as to the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit explaining that there were currently 512 workers in the proposed bargaining unit identified in the Union’s application. In the bargaining unit it had agreed with the Union there are 497 workers. When asked to give reasons for disagreeing with the Union’s estimate of its membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated that it had no evidence that supported agreement or disagreement with the figure given. When asked to give reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition, the Employer said that the Union had given a membership figure of 230 which was less than 50% of the 512 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer’s position was that the actual number of respondents to the Union’s survey of members in 2019 was not given and on this basis it was not possible to determine whether the majority of workers would or would not support membership.

12) In this response, the Employer confirmed that there was no recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. When asked whether, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”.

13) Finally, when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this proposed bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer answered “No”.

5. Existing bargaining arrangements

14) The Panel Chair, having considered the Employer’s response, directed that, before the Panel considered the admissibility of the application, the parties be asked to confirm:

• whether there was in force a collective agreement under which a union was or unions were recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the bargaining unit; and

• the status of the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (ALACE) if any, in relation to any workers within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit?

15) In an email dated 6 July 2020 the Union stated that it was the only union recognised for staff in the proposed bargaining group and that ALACE had no status in relation to the proposed bargaining unit.

16) In a letter of the same date the Employer stated that:

• there was in force a collective agreement under which a union was or unions were recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the bargaining unit.

• the proposed bargaining unit did not comprise officers in the roles that were within the scope of ALACE.

17) The parties’ responses were cross copied and the Employer was asked to respond specifically to the points made in the Union’s email, that it confirm specifically whether and on what basis it considered paragraph 35 barred the Union’s application and that it provide a copy of the relevant agreement it relied upon so that the Panel could understand its submission fully.

18) In a letter dated 9 July 2020 the Employer stated that, whilst it had no objection to the Union’s application proceeding, it should point out there was national collective bargaining machinery in place for workers in the proposed bargaining unit and this may have a bearing on whether there was a collective agreement within the terms of paragraph 35 of the Schedule. Certain terms and conditions, determined through national collective bargaining, were incorporated into employees’ contracts of employment, for example sick pay, maternity leave and pay.

19) In respect of workers on Hay grades. the national collective bargaining machinery was the National Joint Council for Local Government Services for the purposes of which the Union, GMB and Unite formed the trade union side. In respect of workers on SMG4 grades, the national collective bargaining machinery was the National Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers for the purposes of which the Union and GMB formed the trade union side. Copies of the national agreements were attached.

20) With regard to the points made by the Union, the Employer’s response was that there was not a documented collective agreement between the Employer and any trade union specifically setting out recognition rights of any trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Employer agreed that the Union was the only locally recognised trade union for workers in the bargaining unit. Collective bargaining had been conducted in the past with the Union on various matters but not for the purposes of the annual pay award for workers in the bargaining unit.

21) The Employer’s letter of 9 July 2020 was cross copied to the Union and a series of questions were put to both parties in order to establish whether any or the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were covered by existing agreements for recognition and, if so, which union or unions were recognised and whether the matters for which the union or unions were recognised covered pay, hours and holidays.

22) In an email dated 20 July 2020, the Union addressed the questions put by the Panel. In respect of the pay groups Hay and Public Health/Agenda for Change, the Union confirmed that these workers fell within the NJC national agreement. The Union was already recognised for all terms and conditions, collective agreements and organisational change for workers in this bargaining unit, except for the annual pay award. Locally, of the three unions that were party to the NJC National Agreement, only the Union was recognised. In practice, this meant that all local negotiation and collective agreements were made with the Union. Various local collective agreements were negotiated which also varied national terms within the NJC national agreement. Only the determination of the annual pay award fell outside the scope of both the NJC national agreement and collective bargaining with the Union. The Employer’s Pay Policy outlined this, a copy of which was enclosed. The Union confirmed that it was the sole union recognised by the Employer in respect of pay groups Hay and Public Health/Agenda for Change and that this recognition extended to matters that included hours and holidays but excluded pay.

23) As for the pay group SMG4, the Union confirmed that the Employer was a party to the JNC National Agreement, but if it ever required to negotiate or collectively bargain any terms and conditions for these workers it would only do so through the Union. The Union was the only locally recognised trade union for these staff and it was not a case that another union was jointly recognised in respect of these workers.

24) Asked on what basis the workers that formed the SMG4 group fell outside the scope of the national agreement, the Union stated that any collective bargaining or negotiation would be conducted locally with the Union. The determination of the annual pay award also fell outside the scope of the national agreement and national bargaining. The annual pay award was not however collectively bargained with the Union, although for the purposes of the two previous pay awards the Employer did consult with the Union. The Union did accept that very limited terms and conditions namely sick pay were set out in the JNC national agreement. It was also accepted that the JNC national agreement did not extend to collective bargaining in respect of pay.

25) In a letter dated 21 July 2020 the Employer also responded to the questions put by the Panel. In respect of the Hay pay group the Employer stated that there were no alternative arrangements in place and so these particular workers were within the scope of the national agreement. Workers in the Public Health/Agenda for Change pay group however, were not covered by the same national agreement or any other national agreement. The Employer accepted that the Union was the sole union recognised by the Employer in respect of these pay groups. The Employer also accepted that the recognition in respect of both of these pay groups extended to matters that included hours and holidays but excluded pay.

26) As for pay group SMG4, the Employer accepted that the “Joint Negotiating Committee for Local Authority Chief Officers - Conditions of service” was an agreement for collective bargaining and so both the Union and the GMB were jointly recognised in respect of these workers. Both unions were recognised under the national agreement but only the Union was recognised locally by the Employer.

27) Asked on what basis the workers that formed the SMG4 group fell outside the scope of the national agreement, the Employer stated that they were within scope of the national agreement. The Employer accepted that whilst the National Agreement was a collective bargaining agreement for terms and conditions of SMG4 grades in England and Wales, it did not extend to collective bargaining in respect of pay for the SMG4 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

6. The informal meeting

28) The Union’s email and the Employer’s letter were cross-copied and the parties were informed that the Panel Chair was proposing that, rather than further exchanges of correspondence or moving straight to a formal hearing on the matter, an informal meeting be held by way of a video conference to which both parties consented. The informal meeting took place on 7 August 2020 with both the Union and Employer in attendance. The Panel Chair would like to record his appreciation for the parties consenting to the informal meeting taking place and for the amicable way in which the proceedings have been thus far conducted.

29) The informal meeting clarified a number of issues. It established that ALACE was not relevant to these proceedings. It was also agreed that the Employer was party to the NJC in respect of the Hay pay group but had opted out of NJC bargaining in respect of pay. The Employer was not sure whether the Agenda for Change workers were covered by the national agreement and whether or not this was the case was not confirmed.

30) The Union did confirm that sick and maternity pay for the Hay group was drawn from the National Agreement. However, it stated that arrangements had not changed for some time and remained static, with the Employer only drawing down the annual pay award but that this was only applied in respect of workers outside of the proposed bargaining unit. Whilst the Union may be consulted by the Employer, collective bargaining over pay did not take place.

31) The Union said that it viewed the national agreement as being more akin to a reference point with the vast majority of changes to terms and conditions being negotiated through the Union and the Employer only drawing down limited terms and conditions from the national agreement. The Union believed that such arrangements had been in place for a number of decades.

32) The Employer stated that the national agreements were incorporated into workers’ contracts subject to local variations. It provided an example of the relevant contractual provisions during the course of the informal meeting which provided as follows: “During your employment your terms and conditions of employment will be in accordance with the Scheme made by the National Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers as amended from time to time by West Sussex County Council, and including any local variation… From time to time, variations in your terms and conditions will result from negotiation and agreement between WSCC and its recognised trade union(s). The terms of collective agreements resulting from such negotiation and agreement will be held to apply to you if you are in the employment group concerned…”

33) It was established that, if there was a change in NJC arrangements such as maternity leave or pay, the Union would expect that any change such as this would indeed filter through to the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer, in its turn, was not sure whether any such changes would be imposed automatically or be subject to local approval.

34) When asked if both parties were confident that the national agreement did not apply or did not entail negotiation on behalf of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer referred to the extract from a sample contract of employment mentioned above arguing that this made its position clear – it regarded the workers as being covered by the national agreement but it could step away from it should it decide to do so.

35) It was made clear during the informal meeting that, as far as the workers employed by the Council were concerned, the Union was the only union organising in West Sussex and that there was no presence on the part of the other unions that were co-signatories to the national agreement.

36) The Panel also had before it the Employer’s Pay Policy Statement for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 which (at paragraph 3.3) defines “ its lowest paid employees as those paid on the first spinal column point of the [Council’s]s pay grades for National Joint Council (NJC) for Local Government Services Staff” and at paragraph 4.6 states that for “staff on NJC pay grade the County Council uses the formal job evaluation procedures to allocate roles to the appropriate council pay grade.”

7. Considerations

37) In determining whether to accept the application, the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision and it is satisfied that it was able to make its decision fairly on the basis of the written material supplied by the parties and that no hearing was necessary to decide the matter.

38) The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule to recognise it for collective bargaining in respect of the proposed bargaining unit as described in paragraph 1 of this decision and that the application was made in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Schedule.

39) The Panel must also consider whether it is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule.

8. Paragraph 35

40) Paragraph 35(1) of the Schedule states that an application to the CAC made under paragraph 11 or 12 ^{[footnote 2]} is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is, or unions are, recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the bargaining unit proposed by the Union. The question for the Panel to determine is whether, given the circumstances of this case, paragraph 35 renders the Union’s application inadmissible.

41) Paragraph 35(2) then goes on to set out the circumstances under which paragraph 35(1) can be disapplied. They are if:

(a) the union (or unions) recognised under the collective agreement and the union (or unions) making the application under paragraph 11 or 12 are the same, and

(b) the matters in respect of which the union is (or unions are) entitled to conduct collective bargaining do not include pay, hours or holidays.”

42) Paragraph 35(1)(b) in essence provides that, if a trade union (or unions) is recognised by an employer but not for one or more of the ‘core topics’ of pay, hours or holidays, it can apply to the CAC to gain recognition in respect of the outstanding topics. This is often referred to as “top-up”. However, by virtue of paragraph 35(2)(a), this “top-up” can only be sought by all the relevant unions jointly if the collective agreement in question recognises more than one union.

43) In this case both the Union and the Employer are in agreement that the Union is recognised by the Employer. They are likewise in agreement that this recognition does not extend to pay ^{[footnote 3]} and it is in respect of this one element of the “core topics” for the purposes of the Schedule that the Union has brought its application.

44) The first question for the Panel to decide therefore is whether, by virtue of the national bargaining arrangements that are acknowledged by both parties as being in place, there is already in force a collective agreement (or in this case collective agreements) under which a union is, or unions are, recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.

45) The Panel is conscious that its answer to the question posed above is critical to the Union’s application. The Panel likewise recognises that it would only take one of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit to come under the scope of an existing agreement for it to prove fatal to the application proceeding.

46) It has been a less than straightforward task for the Panel to navigate the industrial relations landscape in which the parties operate with the many diverse groups of workers with differing terms and conditions that such a body as a county council employs. More so where any number of these workers may fall under the auspices of collective bargaining agreements made on a local or national basis and where such agreements may be written or unwritten and have been in existence for a considerable period. In this case the Panel only has to concern itself with examining the status of three groups of workers. These groups are the pay groups Hay; SMG4; and Public Health/Agenda for Change. As stated earlier, it only takes one of the workers in any of the three groups to fall in the scope of an existing agreement for collective bargaining for the Union’s application to be ruled as inadmissible under paragraph 35.

47) When asked on the application form if there was an existing agreement for recognition in force that covered any of the workers in the groups that form the proposed bargaining unit, the Union said that it was recognised outside the bargaining unit for NJC workers though this was not codified in a written document but that it had been in force for many decades. As for the bargaining unit itself, the Union was recognised but for everything other than for the purposes of pay. It stated that fact that the Union was recognised was reflected in the contracts of employment of workers both inside and outside of the proposed bargaining unit.

48) The Employer, for its part, stated in its response that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. However, when asked earlier in the form whether it agreed the proposed bargaining unit, it had stated the SMG4 workers had certain terms and conditions determined through national bargaining by the Joint Negotiating Committee for Local Authority Chief Officers and others, including pay, are determined locally. It added that this was a different national negotiating body than applied to Hay or Agenda for Change workers.

49) It was this statement by the Employer that resulted in the Panel making further enquiries as to whether or not an existing collective agreement was in play in this case. The correspondence from the parties has been at times both unclear and contradictory and, indeed, this was the chief reason why the Panel Chair put forward the suggestion of the informal meeting so that he could discuss the matter with the parties face to face, albeit remotely, and gain a better understanding of the relationship between the Union and the Employer as well as the relationship, if any, between the three categories of workers in the proposed bargaining unit and the national agreements referred to by the Employer. The Panel Chair, having attending the informal meeting, reported back to his colleagues on the Panel, the matters that were discussed and those issues that were clarified and are set out in this decision.

50) From the documentation before us and the discussions conducted at the informal hearing it is clear, and it was effectively acknowledged by both parties in their correspondence and at the informal meeting, that the Union, the GMB and Unite are the parties to the National Agreement on Pay and Conditions of Service which applies in respect of the Hay Group employees within the proposed bargaining unit and that the Union and the GMB are parties to the Joint Negotiating Committee for Local Authority Chief Officers which applies in respect of the SMG4 pay group within the bargaining unit. Put another way, the Panel’s clear understanding from the material before it and the discussions at the informal hearing are that the national agreements confer on the relevant participating unions negotiating rights with the representatives of the Employer in relation to the Hay Group and SM4 respectively and that, albeit by way of minimum standards, the national agreements do fix terms and conditions of employment for the relevant workers in the proposed bargaining unit. Neither party has sought to suggest that either national agreement is not a collective agreement for the purposes of the Schedule pursuant to which the relevant unions are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining, understandably since those agreements confer negotiation rights on the relevant unions.

51) The Panel is therefore satisfied on the basis of the material before it that these two national agreements are both collective agreements under which the relevant unions are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of workers - in the Hay Group and SMG4 employees respectively - falling within the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.

52) Accordingly, paragraph 35(1) of the Schedule engages to render the application inadmissible unless paragraph 35(2) applies. Since this application is made by the Union alone and not by the unions which are party to the collective agreements referred to above which apply to certain of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit, the condition set out in paragraph 35(2)(a) is not satisfied. Since paragraph 35(2)(a) does not operate to render the application admissible it is inadmissible pursuant to regulation 35(1).

9. Decision

53) For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not admissible by virtue of paragraph 35 of the Schedule.

10. Concluding observations

54) It is clear that the parties were very close to signing a voluntary recognition agreement which would have accorded the Union rights to collective bargaining in respect of pay but that this agreement stalled when it reached the Council’s Governance Committee. This is the reason why the present application came before the Panel for consideration. It remains a matter for the parties as to whether they should proceed with a voluntary arrangement of the sort which has clearly been under discussion for a considerable time and which might be seen as potentially resolving for both parties the uncertainties and difficulties which the current patchwork of arrangements present. Whilst we would encourage, in the interests of good industrial relations, the parties to resolve these matters by agreement, that is not a matter for this Panel.

Panel

Mr Charles Wynn-Evans, Panel Chair

Mr Len Aspell

Ms Fiona Wilson

30 September 2020

1. The Panel assumes this should read 5 June 2020, the date which the Union stated it served the documents on the Employer. ↩

2. This application was brought under paragraph 12 in that the Employer, in its letter to the Union of 15 October 2018, whilst refusing the request for recognition, indicated a willingness to negotiate. ↩

3. In its application the Union stated that it was “recognised for all terms and conditions, collective agreements and organisation change for workers in this bargaining unit – EXCEPT for the annual pay award”. ↩