Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 1 April 2019

Case Number: TUR1/1064/2018

29 March 2019

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

Cape Industrial Services

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 17 August 2018 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Cape Industrial Services (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All those employed as manual workers at Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station, up to and including senior supervisors”. The location of the bargaining unit stated in the application was “Sizewell B Power Station, Sizewell, Leiston, Suffolk, IP16 4UR.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 20 August 2018. The Employer submitted a response dated 24 August 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 Chairman of the CAC established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Charles Wynn-Evans as chair of the Panel and, as Members, Mr Mike Cann and Mr David Coats. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Miss Sharmin Khan.

3) The Panel accepted the Union’s application by its decision dated 19 October 2018. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in which they were able to reach agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit. In an e-mail exchange between the parties and the CAC, the parties the parties confirmed that the appropriate bargaining unit was that proposed by the Union and comprised:

All Cape (soon to be Altrad) employees/manual workers on Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station, Sizewell, Leiston, Suffolk, IP16 4UR including: direct staff from supervision down to labourer but excluding indirect staff i.e. Site Manager, Commercial / Planning Administrator, Administrator and Project Manager.

4) The Parties also confirmed that any workers employed on temporary contracts for the outage between 29th May and 22nd July 2019 and any local workers who were placed on temporary contracts in the 3 to 4 weeks prior to the outage period were excluded from the bargaining unit and that, in the event that a CAC arranged for a ballot to be held, they would not be able to participate in that ballot.

2. Issues for the Panel

5) Paragraph 22(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) requires the CAC to issue a declaration that a union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers constituting the bargaining unit if it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the applicant union, unless any of the three qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) are fulfilled, in which case a secret ballot will be held. If any of these conditions are met, or the CAC is not satisfied that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the applicant union, the CAC must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for a secret ballot to be held. The qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) are as follows:

a) the CAC is satisfied there should be a ballot in the interests of good industrial relations;

b) that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;

c) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

3. The Union’s claim to majority membership

6) By e-mail to the CAC dated 10 December 2018, the Union informed the Panel that it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and that checks to confirm this should be carried out as soon as possible.

4. The Case Manager’s Membership Check

7) Following the Union’s email of 10 December 2018 claiming majority membership, the Panel instructed that the Case Manager carry out an independent check of the level of Union membership in the bargaining unit. In a letter to the parties dated 12 December 2018 the CAC confirmed the arrangements for the membership check. The Union was asked to provide a list of the names, addresses and dates of birth of the paid up Union members in the bargaining unit and the Employer was asked to provide the names, addresses, dates of birth and job titles of the workers in the bargaining unit. The parties were also informed that, in order to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party.

8) The information from both parties was received by the Case Manager by 12 December 2018. The Case Manager’s report established there were 54 workers in the bargaining unit of whom 29 were members of the Union, a percentage level of 54%. The Case Manager’s report with regard to the membership check was issued to the Panel and to the parties for comment on 12 December 2018.

5. The Employer’s submissions on the Union’s claim to majority membership and the qualifying conditions

9) By invitation of the Panel the Employer made its submissions in respect of the three qualifying conditions for a ballot to be held as set out in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule (see paragraph 5 above) in its letter to the CAC dated 18 December 2018.

10) The Employer claimed that the three qualifying conditions were met. It had received a grievance from 13 employees in the bargaining unit who were Union members. These employees did not want the Union to be recognised without at least the opportunity to vote in a ballot. A copy of the collective grievance with the names of the signatories redacted was supplied to the Panel. Other employees had also brought to the Employer’s attention that the petition of support that the Union had relied on as evidence that its application was supported by workers in the proposed bargaining unit in the earlier stage of the statutory process was obtained by the Union under false pretences. The document they were signing was a request for the Union to support the affected employees in relation to a proposed collective grievance about Euro Holiday. The Employer contended that the document had been presented to the Panel without the approval of the signatories as evidence of support for Union recognition. In its view, this was a deliberate misrepresentation by the Union of the document in question and the intentions of the employees who had signed it. This, the Employer argued, cast significant doubts on the veracity of the Union’s overall claim that it had sufficient support within the bargaining unit and the credibility of any and all of the other representations the Union had made to the Panel to date.

11) The Employer also commented on the manner in which it contended that the Union was conducting itself on site which it considered was unacceptable. The Employer informed the Panel that on numerous occasions the Union had called employees in the bargaining unit off work to hold unauthorised and un-notified meetings and that it had produced inflammatory and misleading leaflets. A copy of these leaflets was supplied to the Panel. The Employer also felt that the Union had begun to engage in threatening correspondence which it felt was wholly unacceptable and not in the spirit of true recognised partnership. Copies of the relevant correspondence was supplied to the Panel.

6. Union’s rebuttal and supporting evidence to the Panel

12) On 2 January 2019 the Union submitted to the Panel its response to the Employer’s contentions. The Union stated that it understood that in a situation such as this things could become heated. Nevertheless and not wishing to overreact the Union took the position that was still shocked by the Employer’s claim that its petition of support was “obtained under false pretences”. On its account, there had only been one petition circulated and presented to the CAC which contained the simple and straightforward heading: “we the undersigned employees of Cape Industrial Services request that Cape recognises our trade union, Unite for the purposes of collective bargaining”. Also, its position was that the petition was circulated by the Union after a mass meeting on site during which the Union explained at length what the recognition process involved.

13) The Union also disputed the Employer’s claim that the petition was submitted to the Panel without approval from the signatories. The Union was in no doubt that all who signed the petition knew exactly what they were signing up to. As the Union noted, the Panel was already aware that the petition stated in capitals that:

“THIS PETITION WILL NOT BE SHOWN TO CAPE MANAGEMENT.

– IT WILL BE PRESENTED TO ACAS OR THE CAC AND THEY WILL VERIFY THE NUMBER, NOT THE NAMES”

14) The Union contended that it had throughout the process behaved truthfully and straightforwardly. In its view any bad industrial relations had been created by the Employer. The “collective grievance” to which the Employer had referred the Panel in its view might well have contained names of people who were not in the bargaining unit. In its view the “company petition” was circulated by a supervisor (which it described as “standard practice”) not with the aim of garnering any real opinion but simply to prevent recognition at all costs, which it felt was clearly the Employer’s position. In its opinion, any doubt was created by the Employer not the employees.

15) With regard to the “numerous unauthorised meetings” that the Employer had alleged had taken place, the Union stated that it had attended two meetings in the course of its recognition campaign both of which, to its knowledge, were authorised by supervisors and which both took place well before the working day commenced. In the Union’s opinion, the Employer’s case was contradictory, arguing that the employees had too little information but at the same time stating there were numerous meetings held with the Union.

16) The Union stated that its position was quite clear - both through a petition and continual increases of Union membership, it had shown that the workers in the bargaining unit supported collective bargaining. The Union put it to the Panel that in its experience the adversarial environment created by a ballot would not improve industrial relations in these circumstances, whatever the outcome was.

17) In conclusion, the Union stated that the Employer had to this point consistently delayed the process and asked the Panel to draw their own inferences from this. The Union’s submission was that the Panel should award recognition in order for both parties to move towards a sensible and mutually respectful relationship as soon as possible as was the case in all other areas of the Sizewell B Power station.

18) On 3 January 2019 the Union submitted to the Case Manager a copy of a letter it had received from a worker. The letter was signed by several workers. The Union confirmed to the Case Manager that the un-redacted version of the letter could be copied to the Employer. In summary, the letter made the following points:

• The Employer was against their wishes for the Union to be recognised

• The Employer was asking some of the workers to sign a petition against recognition on the grounds that workers who signed up to support Union recognition did not understand what they were signing up to.

• The workers’ signatures on this letter were from workers who had attended the Union’s meeting last year and in signing were bearing witness that they understood exactly what was being said in that meeting.

• The workers did not understand why there was hostility from the Employer when the Union had majority support in the bargaining unit and as Union recognition was a good thing.

7. The Employer’s final submission

19) On 19 January 2019 the Employer provided its response to the Union’s letter of 2 January 2019 and the workers’ letter to the Case Manager dated 3 January 2019. The Employer maintained that the Panel should not declare the Union recognised without a ballot. It accepted that the Union appeared to have majority membership with the signatures appearing on the letter of 3 January 2019 but still considered that holding a ballot would resolve its concerns that workers had signed up to support recognition without a full understanding of what it meant and that a ballot was the fair and equitable way for all workers in the bargaining unit to decide, without peer pressure, whether they wanted recognition of the Union.

20) The Employer’s position was that there were 23 workers in favour of Union recognition and 13 workers who had requested a ballot meaning there were still 19 workers who had not voiced a view on either side’s petition. Taken with those who had requested a ballot, this equated to 58% of the potential bargaining unit with only 42% having expressed their desire for recognition. The Union argued that it was in the best interest of industrial relations that the majority were given the opportunity to vote in a ballot and decide for themselves whether they wanted Union recognition. 23 workers had given the Employer their approval to talk to the Union on matters that affected them, but the remainder - and the majority - of the bargaining unit had not. The Employer was concerned that a majority of the workers would be upset with the Employer for discussing key matters with the Union when they had not given it a mandate to do so. This would, in the Employer’s view, have a huge detrimental effect on industrial relations.

21) One worker had signed both petitions - the Employer felt therefore that it was highly likely that a number of individuals did not fully understand the implications of what they were agreeing to. The Employer also raised the issue of what it contended that the Union had been promising workers. Senior Managers had recently addressed the workforce with the Union’s site representative. It was explained in that address that collective bargaining would mean that Pay and Conditions could be negotiated every year and that the current arrangement i.e. that employees were awarded a pay increase that matched that of the NAECI agreement, might not necessarily be the case under the terms of collective bargaining. The Employer had, however, received feedback from workers that the Union had given them the impression that they would still just receive NAECI increases. This would not be the case as negotiations would need to be entered into each year under the terms of collective bargaining. According to the Employer, further promises had been made by the Union about what it would bargain for which would be extremely difficult for the Employer to deliver on as a business. The Employer explained that a local agreement with the workers at Sizewell that differed in pay and conditions with other sites would make moving labour difficult for the organisation ^{[footnote 1]}.

22) Following the collective grievance (see paragraph 10 above) Senior Management had recently addressed the workers in the bargaining unit during which it was made clear to the Employer that, had things been explained to them in the manner it was being explained in that meeting, they would never have signed the letter that had been put to them by the Union. The Employer assured its workers that it would do everything it could to get them a ballot as this was the option they preferred.

23) In conclusion, the Employer submitted that for these reasons each of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule were fulfilled and that a ballot therefore must be held prior to any statutory recognition of the Union.

8. The Union’s final submission

24) The Panel invited the Union’s comments on the Employer’s petition (collective grievance from the workers, see paragraph 10 above). By its e-mail to the CAC dated 24 January 2019, the Union stated that it had not seen the signatures but it had been told that they were not from workers in the bargaining unit. However, the Union was concerned that there might now be people in the Employer’s lists who are not in fact manual workers and re-emphasised its request that what it described as the Employer’s “counter petition” be checked carefully. The Union confirmed that it was happy for the CAC to conduct the checks without the Union having sight of those signatures. In any event, in its view, whatever “snapshot” that the Panel went by, the Union still had majority support within the bargaining unit and there was still no need for a ballot.

25) In relation to the Employer’s submission to the Panel as to the perceived impracticality of bargaining on a one-site basis ^{[footnote 2]}, the Union argued that, since the bargaining unit had already been agreed by both parties, this demonstrated that the Employer’s concerns were not to do with the fairness of the recognition process but rather with preventing recognition.

26) The Union argued that the Panel should use its industrial experience to see the Employer’s petition for what it contended that it was - a “creature of the Employer, designed to thwart the will of the workforce and circulated if not under duress then certainly under a certain amount of moral pressure”. Conversely, the Union official in question contrasted this with the petition submitted by the workforce which he was not even aware of until it was sent to him. (He had asked the Union’s rep to draft an account of how the employers’ petition came about and instead he produced the letter in question).

27) In conclusion, the Union argued that there was majority support for recognition in the bargaining unit as well as majority membership, that recognition should be automatically granted and any delay would lead to further anti-union activity by the Employer which would cause more damage to the “very functional” industrial relations the Union had shown that it stood for elsewhere in Sizewell B.

28) Finally, the Union asked the Panel to note for the record that the Employer had made very strong allegations about the Union’s conduct and behaviour in respect of which it would be grateful if the Employer could either submit evidence to this effect or cease its unfounded allegations.

29) On 24 January 2019 the Union also submitted another letter from the workers with a further six signatures dated 19 January 2019 adopting the same wording in as the letter submitted to the CAC dated 3 January 2019 (see paragraph 18 above).

9. The Case Manager’s check of the workers’ signatures

30) Following the parties’ submissions and petitions, the Panel instructed the Case Manager to carry out independent checks of the level of the Union membership in the bargaining unit and of the worker signatures appearing on the letter which was provided by the Employer to the Panel in support of its case for a ballot to be held and of the worker signatures appearing on the letters which were provided by the Union to the Panel in support of its case to be declared recognised without a ballot. To preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and signatures that were previously redacted were not copied to the Panel or between the parties. The Case Manager’s report from her checks was reported to the Panel as follows.

10. Union’s information

31) On 28 January 2019 the Union provided the names, addresses and membership numbers of its Union members in the bargaining unit. On 3 January 2019, the Union provided a copy of a letter it had received from a worker with workers’ signatures. Due to the Case Manager’s problems with printing the JPEG form the Union resubmitted the letter as a PDF document to the CAC on 5 February 2019 for the purposes of the Case Manager’s checks. The letter had the following printed statement at the top of the page:

“Dear sharman khan

I am here speaking on behalf of the unite workforce at sizewell b powerstation, we believe that cape management/senior supervision are trying to put a stop to our wish of becoming unionized workforce at sizewell b and are trying by any means necessary, the fact that they have asked some of the workforce to sign a petition against becoming a unionized workforce on the grounds of not understanding what we were signing for is just crazy, I have out together names and signatures of people who attended the meeting last year who bear witness to the truth and were there and understood exactly what everyone in that room that day was signing for when we had our union meeting with miles Hubbard, this is the statement, we the undersigned employers of cape industrial service request that cape recognizes our trade union, unite for the purposes of collective bargaining, as a workforce we really don’t understand why all the hostility is coming from our employer as a union recognized site is a good thing all round but Despite the fact that we have a majority of support for our bargaining unit on o a petition. And majority membership, the company are still arguing this, we hope for our sake as a workforce that you manage to read this letter sharman.

Your sincerely”

Beneath the printed statement were 23 hand written names with signatures under which was the following handwritten statement signed by one of the signatories:

“Due to the speed required for this letter these signatures are all of the manual workers on site as of 3rd January 2019. With the rest still being on annual leave.”

32) On 24 January 2019 the Union submitted to the Panel a copy of the same letter signed with a further 6 hand written names and signatures dated 16 January 2019.

11. Employer’s information

33) On 29 January 2019 the Employer provided the names, job descriptions and start dates for the workers in the bargaining unit. As the spreadsheet did not include the addresses of the individuals, the Employer re-submitted the list, including addresses, to the Case Manager on 6 February 2019. The Employer also provided on the 29 January 2019 a PDF copy of a letter it had received dated 13 December 2018. At the top right hand corner of the letter was the printed name of the sender and the C/O address which was the Sizewell B Power Station address and the date 13/12/2018. Below the address was the following statement:

“xxx

It has come to my attention that we as a work force have agreed to opt out of a vote for full union representation. I feel that this would irresponsible at this point in time as the benefits of this have not been explained to us as a collective. I think that Cape/Altrad need to sit down with all concerned to explain everybody, not just Unite members, the changes that would be made/implemented to the terms and conditions of employment. This is the first thing that needs to happen, and once everybody is informed then the workforce as a collective can make an educated decision.

I believe that any letters that have been signed in the past have been done with the belief that what was being signed was for Unite to represent the workforce (Unite, GMB & non-members0 in the issue over the fight for the Ero holiday with the belief that the representation issue would only go ahead after a vote with the entire workforce.

I am not alone in my views on this matter, the undersigned are just some of the work force that I have had the opportunity to talk to who share my opinion and would like to investigate the matter further before a concrete decision is made on the matter.

Thanks”

Beneath the statement were 13 printed names. Of the 13 printed names 2 did not have a signature next to it. Of these 2, 1 was crossed out. Of the 13 printed names, 11 had a signature beside it and included the sender’s name and signature. In addition to the 13 printed names there were 2 hand written names with signatures. One of the signatories was the sender appearing at the top right hand corner of the letter.

12. The Case Manager’s checks

34) The Case Manager conducted three checks of the information provided by both parties:

• A comparison of the names appearing on the Union’s membership list with the list of workers in the bargaining unit supplied by the Employer

• A comparison of the names/signatures appearing on the letter provided by the Union with the list of workers in the bargaining unit supplied by the Employer and with the names/signatures on the letter provided by the Employer and with the Union’s membership list

• A comparison of the names/signatures on the letter provided by the Employer with the list of workers in the bargaining unit supplied by the Employer, the Union’s membership list and the letter provided by the Union

35) The results of the check were issued in a detailed report dated 15 February 2019 to the Panel and the parties. The results established by the Case Manager’s check are set out at appendix 1 to this decision.

13. Panel’s considerations and decision

36) The Schedule requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union and, if the Panel is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must declare the Union recognised by the Employer, unless it decides that any of the three conditions in paragraph 22(4) are fulfilled. If the Panel considers any of the conditions are fulfilled, it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.

14. Para 22(4)(b) of the Schedule

37) The Union has asked the Panel to declare recognition of the Union for collective bargaining without a ballot. The Case Manager’s most recent membership check established that there were 30 members of the Union in the bargaining unit of 46 workers i.e. a membership level of 65% of the total in the bargaining unit which uncontested by the Employer. The Panel concludes that the check was conducted fairly and appropriately and is satisfied that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

38) The Union has a clear and substantial majority of the bargaining unit in terms of membership and support – 65% of the bargaining unit are members of the Union and 63% of the bargaining unit signed the Union’s letter.

39) Whilst 24% of the bargaining unit signed the employer’s letter, 9% of the bargaining unit who are members of the Union signed the employer’s letter and 3.45% of the bargaining unit are union members of the Union who signed both letters.

40) On the basis of these figures, the Panel does not accept that there is evidence available to support a conclusion that a significant number of members of the Union within the bargaining unit do not want the union to collect collective bargaining on its behalf. Therefore the Panel has decided that the qualifying condition of para 22(4)(b) of the Schedule - that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf – is not met.

15. Para 24(4)(a) of the Schedule

41) Assessing the evidence before it with its industrial experience the Panel does not accept that there is sufficient evidence that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations given (a) the strength of support for the recognition of the Union as set out above (which the Panel also considers means that a ballot might not assist industrial relations and only serve to heighten tensions with adverse industrial relations consequences) and (b) its view that the level and nature of the debate about recognition which has occurred in this case is consistent with an employer unwilling to agree recognition voluntarily rather than demonstrating a difficult industrial relations situation which would warrant a ballot in order to seek to resolve that situation. Whilst the Employer sought to rely on the alleged approach of the Union to the recognition process in arguing that a ballot was appropriate in the interests of good industrial relations, the Panel considers that the evidence before it, even on the Employer’s case, demonstrates a debate about the value of union recognition which is not unusual or abnormal and does not of itself indicate a need for a ballot concerning recognition. The Panel has also considered the Employer’s submission that a ballot would be appropriate since recognition would apply to Sizewell B employees and no other EDF groups of employees. The Panel’s view is not satisfied that recognition would potentially affect industrial relations at this site such that a ballot would be appropriate.

42) The Panel therefore considers that the qualifying condition of para 22(4)(a) of the Schedule - that the CAC is satisfied there should be a ballot in the interests of good industrial relations – is not met.

16. Para 22(4)(c) of the Schedule

43) On the basis of the figures set out in the Case Manager’s report, the Panel is not satisfied on the basis of the evidence that it has received that there are doubts whether a significant number of union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

44) The Panel therefore concludes that none of the three qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule apply in this case.

17. Decision

45) The Panel is satisfied, in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule, that the majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising:

All Cape (soon to be Altrad) employees/manual workers on Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station, Sizewell, Leiston, Suffolk, IP16 4UR including: direct staff from supervision down to labourer but excluding indirect staff i.e. Site Manager, Commercial / Planning Administrator, Administrator and Project Manager.

Panel

Mr Charles Wynn-Evans – Panel Chairman

Mr Mike Cann

Mr David Coats

29 March 2019

18. APPENDIX 1 OF 1

Result of the check of the level of union membership in the bargaining unit

a) Number of workers in the bargaining unit on the list provided by the Employer: 46

b) Number of Union members on the list provided by the Union: 31

c) Number of Union members not appearing on the Employer’s list: 1

d) Number of names common to both lists i.e. no. of Union members in the bargaining unit. 30

e) Number of Union members as a proportion of the in the bargaining unit: 65%

Result of the check of the signatures on the Union’s letter against the number of workers in the bargaining unit

a) Number of workers in the bargaining unit on the list provided by the Employer: 46

b) Number of names/signatures on the Union’s letter: 29

c) Number of names/signatures on the Union’s letter and on the list of workers in the bargaining unit provided by the Employer (row e + i) 29

d) Number of names/signatures on the Union’s letter as a proportion of workers in the bargaining unit: 63%

e) Number of names/signatories on the Union’s letter who are Union members: 25

f) Number of names/signatories on the Union’s letter who are Union members as proportion of the workers in the bargaining unit: 54%

g) Number of names/signatories on the Union’s letter who are Union members, who also signed the Employer’s letter: 2

h) Number of names/signatories on the Union’s letter who are Union
members, who also signed the Employer’s letter as a proportion of the bargaining unit: 4%

i) Number of names/signatories on the Union’s letter who are not Union members: 4

j) Number of names/signatories on the Union’s letter who are not Union members as proportion of the workers in the bargaining unit: 2%

Result of the comparison of the employee numbers/signatures on the Employer’s letter appearing on the list of workers in the bargaining unit, the Union’s membership list and letter.

a) Number of workers in the bargaining unit on the list provided by the Employer: 46

b) Number of names/signatures on the Employer’s letter: (row c + d + e ) : 15

c) Number of employee names/signatures on the Employer’s letter that were crossed out: 1

d) Number of employee names/signatures on the Employer’s letter, who do not appear on the Employer’s list and not in the bargaining unit: 3

e) Total number of employee numbers/signatures on the Employer’s letter in the bargaining unit (row f + g + i) : 11

     The above as a proportion of the bargaining unit:  24%

f) Number of employee names/signatures on the Employer’s letter who are Union members: 4

     The above as a proportion of the bargaining unit: 9% 	

g) Number of employee numbers/signatures on the Employer’s letter who are not Union members: 5

h) The above as a proportion of the proposed bargaining unit: 11%

i) Number of names/signatories on the Employer’s letter who are Union members, who also signed the Union’s letter: 2

j) The above as a proportion of the workers in the bargaining unit: 3.45%

1. The Employer provided the Panel with more detail on how collectively bargaining on one site was problematic for its business model but since these contentions are not relevant to the qualifying conditions listed in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule, these have not been addressed in this decision. ↩

2. The Employer provided the Panel with more detail on how collectively bargaining on one site was problematic for its business model but since these contentions are not relevant to the qualifying conditions listed in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule these have not been addressed in this decision. ↩