Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 11 March 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1426(2024)

03 March 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

AGREEMENT OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

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)         In a letter dated 18 February 2025 the Panel invited the parties to make submissions on these matters for consideration by the Panel.

3. Views of the Union

6)         In an email dated 18 February 2025 the Union answered the questions as follows:

• Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? NO

• Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? YES, we are confident that we have a high membership density in the new BU

• Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition? YES, We are confident, having consulted our members, that there is clear majority support for recognition in the new BU

• Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? NO

• Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? NO

4. Views of the Employer

7)         In an email dated 20 February 2025 the Employer advised that:

• (agreeing with the Union) there was no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit,

• (agreeing with the Union) From the previous communications the Employer believed that there was membership above the 10% level.

• The Employer when asked if they knew whether the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition. The Employer’s response was that, as this was a subset of the previous bargaining unit, which had majority support, it believed this would be the case.

• (agreeing with the Union) there was no competing application from another union that covered any workers in the new bargaining unit;

• (agreeing with the Union) there was no previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit

5. The membership and support check

8)         To assist in the determination of two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 45(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership and support for recognition within the agreed bargaining unit. The Union provided a list its members in the agreed bargaining unit, the information from the Union was received by the CAC on 24 February 2025.  The Employer provided a list of workers in the agreed bargaining unit on 23 February 2025. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter from the Case Manager to both parties dated 21 February 2025.  The Panel is satisfied that the check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

9)         The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 32 workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 26 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the agreed bargaining unit was 20, a membership level of 62.50%.

10)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 25 February 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the result.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

11)       In an email dated 27 February 2025 the Union stated, “My only comments are that, as before, we are aware that some of the names provided either do not fall within the bargaining unit, or have since left the employment at HRW, but we provided a more exhaustive list for the sake of completion”.

12)       In an email dated 27 February 2025 the Employer stated that they had no further comments at this stage of the process.

7. Discussion and conclusions

13)       The Panel must decide whether the Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered the parties’ submissions and the other evidence before it. The following matters are not disputed:

• there is no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the agreed bargaining unit;

• there is no competing application from another union; and

• there has been no previous application in respect of the agreed bargaining unit.

14)       The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the validity criteria contained in paragraphs 45(a) and (b) are met.

Paragraph 45(a)

15)       Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager outlined above showed that 62.50% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As previously stated, the Panel is satisfied that the check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(b)

16)       Under paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule, an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

17)       In assessing whether it is likely that a majority of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition of the Union, the Panel believes that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, trade union membership can be taken as a legitimate indicator of likely support for recognition for collective bargaining purposes.  

18)       Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the agreed 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 45(b) of the Schedule.

8. Decision

19)       The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC must proceed with the application.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Paul Noon OBE

03 March 2025