Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 11 March 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1426(2024)

11 March 2025

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

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)         By a decision dated 16 October 2024 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. On 14 February 2025 the parties notified the CAC that they had reached an agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit and this was “All UK-contracted staff up to and including Grade 6. It will exclude: Any member of the Executive Committee, The UK Director, Any positions in the General Counsel’s Office, Any positions in the HR Department,      Any positions in the Executive Director’s Office, Grade 6 positions with management responsibilities”. This bargaining unit differed from that originally proposed by the Union in its application.

2. Issues

4)         As the bargaining unit agreed by the parties differed from that proposed by the Union, Paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) requires the Panel to decide whether the Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 the Schedule.  The matters that the Panel must consider are: -

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

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

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

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

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

5)         The Case Manager had conducted a check of the level of union membership within the agreed bargaining unit in order to assist the Panel to decide whether the Union’s application was valid. A report of the result of the check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 21 February 2025. This check showed that 62.50% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. For the reasons set out in paragraph 8 of its decision dated 3 March 2025 the Panel was satisfied that this check provided a proper representation of the level of union membership within the bargaining unit.

3. The Union’s claim to majority membership and submission it should be recognised without a ballot

6)         In a letter dated 3 March 2025 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in a letter dated 5 March 2025 stated: “The Union does not agree that a ballot is appropriate. The CAC has accepted that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. It is further submitted that the proportion of union members (over 62% of the agreed Bargaining Unit) represents a comfortable majority. In any event, the CAC is not entitled to ‘impose, in effect, a threshold for recognition without a ballot higher than that stipulated by the legislators. On this point, the Union relies on the decision in ISTC and Fuller Computer Industries Ltd (TUR1/29/00) which was affirmed on an application for judicial review in Re Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd, [2001] IRLR 752. In the Union’s submission, once majority membership is established, the Union should be awarded recognition without a ballot unless there is good reason to hold otherwise. The Union submits that none of the 3 statutory exceptions apply in these circumstances. In particular, the Union submits that holding a ballot would not be in the interests of good industrial relations. The Union has sought to establish good industrial relations both before and during the CAC process without any success. In the Union’s submission, the practical effect of a ballot would by its very nature engender an adversarial situation within the workplace, with the Union and the Employer embroiled in a divisive contest. In summary, the Union’s submission is that it has demonstrated majority membership within the bargaining unit, none of the 3 statutory exceptions apply and, therefore, the Union should be granted recognition”.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s claim that they should be recognised without a ballot

7)         On 5 March 2025 the CAC copied the Union’s letter of the same date to the Employer and invited the Employer to make submissions in relation to the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and in relation to the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.

8)         In its response dated 6 March 2025 the Employer stated: “ Human Rights Watch does not have any reason or evidence to support that the agreed upon bargaining unit, represented by Unite, does not have a majority support. As such, HRW does not believe that any of the three statutory exceptions apply in this circumstance. Thus, we agree with the Union that a ballot is not needed to confirm recognition. HRW also agrees that holding a ballot would not be in the interest of good industrial relations between our organization and the Union. We have engaged in good faith throughout the process to continue to build these relations with the Union and will continue to do so as we progress through the process. In summary, HRW is in support of the CAC granting the Union recognition without a ballot”.

5. Considerations

9)         The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union.  If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must then decide if any of the three conditions in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled.   If the Panel considers that any of them is fulfilled it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot. 

10)       As stated in paragraph 5 above, the membership check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 62.50% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union and the Panel is satisfied that this check provided a proper representation of the level of union membership within the bargaining unit. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

11)        The Panel has considered carefully whether any of the qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled.

12)       The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.  The Panel has not received any evidence that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations and is not satisfied that this condition is fulfilled.

13)    The second condition is 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 to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel has no such evidence, and the Panel has therefore concluded that this condition does not apply.

14)    The third condition is that membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.  No such evidence has been produced, and the Panel has therefore concluded that this condition does not apply.

6. Declaration of recognition

15)   The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a 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 of “All UK-contracted staff up to and including Grade 6. It will exclude: Any member of the Executive Committee, The UK Director, Any positions in the General Counsel’s Office, Any positions in the HR Department, Any positions in the Executive Director’s Office, Grade 6 positions with management responsibilities.”

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Paul Noon OBE

11 March 2025