Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 19 September 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1421(2024)

9 September 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:

Unite the Union

and

AB-Inbev

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 12 August 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by AB-Inbev (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All employees of ABInbev/Camden Town Brewery working at Morson Rd, Enfield EN3 4TJ, in all non-banded salary job roles”.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 12 August 2024.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 19 August 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham, and Mr Michael Clancy.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 27 August 2024.  The acceptance period was extended to 10 September 2024 to allow time to conduct a membership check and for the parties to comment on the results before the Panel arrived at a decision.

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 4 April 2024, by way of an email requesting that the Employer recognise the Union to conduct collective bargaining. The Employer in its response email, received by the Union on 15 July 2024 rejected the Union’s request for voluntary recognition.

6)         When asked whether the Union had made any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered “N/A”. 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 unknown. The Union confirmed that there were 39 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 24 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, “Unite the Union completed an electronic recognition petition signed by all members”.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was that “All those in the proposed BU are non-managerial employees at the Camden town brewery site”. 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 “None”.

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 4 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 4 April 2024. The Employer stated it responded to the Union by way of a letter dated 15 April 2024, explaining that at this time it had decided not to pursue voluntary recognition for the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

11)       The Employer said that it had not received a copy of the application form from the Union. The Employer stated that it had not agreed the bargaining unit with the Union. When asked if it agreed the bargaining unit as set out by the Union in its application the Employer answered “Yes”. ^{[footnote 1]}

12)       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. The Employer also stated that it employed a total of 48 workers and that it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application.

13)       Asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “We do not agree the union’s estimate of membership. Our reasons for this are based on discussions we have had with our employees who have not suggested that they are members of the unite, the fact that Mr. McCartney at no time during the discussions between May and July (despite being asked) disclosed the number of members allegedly in there proposed bargaining unit. If there was such a majority of 24 members it is surprising to say the least that that this was not disclosed. Finally, we have had fruitful discussions with employees in the Proposed Bargaining Unit about employee representation and none of them have said they are members of Unite so there is no point discussing representation with them because they will want to be represented by Unite”.

14)       When asked if the employer did not consider that a majority of the workers in the Bargaining Unit were likely to support recognition and to indicate its reasons of taking this view with any available evidence, the Employer stated “We do not consider a majority of workers are likely to support recognition. This is based on anecdotal evidence of the positive response to our plans for our own employee representative groups to be established at the Brewery which we have discussed with our employees and the reaction to which has been very positive.  No one has said to us that there is no point in having an employee representative group because they want Union recognition instead. In fact, we have already had 7 employees volunteer to be employee representatives which we consider is indicative of  a significant level for given the numbers at the site”.

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 21 August 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.

17)       The information requested was received by the CAC from both the parties on 23 August 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 39 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 25 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of members in the proposed bargaining unit was 25, a membership level of 64.10%.

19)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 28 August 2024 and the parties’ comments invited.

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

20)       In an email to the Case Manager dated 2 September 2024 the Union stated, “Thank you for the report and the content therein. Based on the report. Unite the Union take the position the CAC should proceed with granting union recognition with AB-inbev. Unite the Union believe we have satisfied 36 of the Schedule A & B. Especially considering the most recent increase in membership”.

21)       The Employer did not submit any comments on the results of the membership report by the deadline imposed.

7. Considerations

22)       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. 

23)       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)

24)       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 64.10% 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)

25)       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.

26)       The Panel notes from the membership check that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (64.10%) 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.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Michael Clancy

9 September 2024

1. The Union sent an email with attachments to the CAC dated 21 August 2024. This email showed that the Union had sent a copy of its application to the Employer on 20 August 2024 at 9:46am. ↩