Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 17 October 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1426(2024)

16 October 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

Human Rights Watch Inc

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 20 September 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Human Rights Watch Inc (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “All employees assigned to the London branch” based at Audrey House, 16 -20 Ely Place, London, EC1N 6SN.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 20 September 2024.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 27 September 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 Paul Noon OBE.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 4 October 2024.  The acceptance period was then extended to 18 October 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 21 February 2024. The Union confirmed that the Employer responded on 6 March 2024, stating “That given that the scope of the request (‘collective bargaining including pay, hours and holidays’) was ‘unclear’, the request was rejected. However, the employer stated that they were willing to negotiate in respect of recognition and proposed that ACAS be contacted to facilitate negotiations. There has been some correspondence relating to negotiations which has not resulted in any agreement by way of a letter requesting that the Employer recognise the Union to conduct collective bargaining. The Employer in its response letter, received by the Union on 12 July 2024 requested to meet the Union to discuss matters further. A meeting was held on 15 August 2024, where the Employer rejected the Union’s request for voluntary recognition”.

6)         The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties and the Union accepted this proposal.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 38. The Union confirmed that there were 38 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 25 were members of the Union.

8)         The Union when asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, stated it had a petition indicating majority support.

9)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because it understood that it covered all employees in the UK.

10)       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, “No”. The Union said that the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer.

11)       Finally, the Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence and that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 19 September 2024.  

4. Summary of the Employer’s application

12)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 21 February 2024. The Employer stated it responded to the Union by way of an email stating “Thank you for your letter to Human Rights Watch Inc (HRW) dated 20 February 2024 received on 21 February 2024. We note that your request for recognition is in respect of “collective bargaining including pay, hours and holidays. Given that it is unclear exactly what it is that you are requesting, HRW rejects your request. However, HRW respects freedom of association and collective bargaining in the workplace and does wish to work with our UK-based staff in relation to this request and in accordance with UK laws and regulations and in the spirit of our respect for human rights. Therefore, although your request is rejected, HRW is willing to negotiate in respect of it and we look forward to working together. We propose that Acas be asked to assist in negotiations”.

13)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 20 September 2024. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union.

14)       When asked if the Employer agreed with the proposed bargaining unit, it stated “No” and set out its objections by stating that “The proposed bargaining unit represents the entire UK workforce. We consider that it is not appropriate for Grades 5 and 6 to be included in the bargaining unit. Grades 5 and 6 include our UK Director and other director-level staff that are a part of and represent management”. The Employer confirmed that following receipt of the Union’s request, it had 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.

15)       The Employer stated that it employed a total of 37 workers and that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. When asked the reasons for any difference, the Employer stated “The union states a bargaining unit of 38, we say 37. We believe the discrepancy is due to them possibly not having the most up to date staffing numbers for our UK workforce”.

16)       Asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “We neither agree nor disagree, we would like to verify the membership after we have agreed on the definition of the bargaining unit”.

17)       When asked if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition, and to indicate its reasons for taking this view, with any available evidence, the Employer once again stated, “We neither agree nor disagree with the union’s stated level of support, but we do wish to see evidence of support”.

18)       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

19)       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) and a copy of the petition signed by workers in favour of recognition. 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 2 October 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.

20)       The information requested from the Employer was received on 6 October 2024 and from the Union on 7 October 2024. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

21)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 37 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 23 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of members in the proposed bargaining unit was 18, a membership level of 48.65%.

22)       The petition supplied by the Union contained 29 names and signatures. The report showed that 48.65% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit had signed the petition in favour of recognition. The proportion of workers in the proposed bargaining unit who had signed the petition and were non-members was 5.41%. The petition was sent to the CAC case manager in the format of an excel spreadsheet. The petition was set out as follows:

“Unite the Union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise Unite for collective bargaining, please sign the petition. I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining including pay, hours, and holidays.

Name:

Job Title

Signature”

23)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 8 October 2024 and the parties’ comments invited.

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

24)       In an email to the Case Manager dated 10 October 2024 the Employer stated:

1) “A majority as required by 36(1)(b) TULR(C)A 1992 has not been met, and accordingly the union’s application is not admissible.

2) In any event, the union appears to have petitioned individuals who are not part of the bargaining unit (the 8 names/signatures who do not appear on our list), as well as 3 names that may be duplicated.

3) The figures supplied by the union are contradictory, in so far as at (6) it records 18 union members, but at (7) it records only 16 union members.

4) Consequently, the figures provided by the union are unreliable, and there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate sufficient majority union support within the bargaining unit.

5) We remain committed to working with the union if the required majority threshold is met”.

25)       In an email to the Case Manager dated 11 October 2024 the Union stated, “We feel that union membership should be taken as an indication of likely support for recognition, and therefore we judge that we have demonstrated that a majority will favour recognition (as shown by the fact that the number of those matching the employer’s list who signed the petition and who are union members exceeds 50% of the Bargaining Unit). It should also be noted that we sent the data in a raw form, without removing any results, but we were aware that some figures would have been affected by the employer’s recent restructuring”.

7. Considerations

26)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied.  The Panel has considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

27)       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 12. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and 36(1)(b) are met. 

8. Paragraph 36

28)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 21 above showed that 48.65% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. 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.

29)       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.

30)       As stated above, membership levels amount to 48.65% of the workers in the bargaining unit. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes that membership of the Union is an indicator of support for recognition of the Union. The Panel also considers that the workers who signed the petition in support of recognition but are not union members, representing a further 5.41% of the workers in the bargaining unit, who are likely to support recognition, giving a total claimed support level of 54.06% at present. Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence in this case the Panel has reached the view that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a likelihood that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition.

9. Decision

31)       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 Paul Noon OBE

16 October 2024