Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 25 July 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1292(2022)

23 December 2022

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

Inflite Engineering Services Limited

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 22 November 2022 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Inflite Engineering Services Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “On behalf of all your workers employed by your organisation within Woodside 1 with the exception of Managers and Office staff.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Woodside 1, Aircraft Component Repair and Overhaul Centre, Woodside Industrial Park, Dunmow Road, Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire.” The application was received by the CAC on 23 November 2022 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 24 November 2022 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 Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Martin Kirke and Ms Joanna Brown. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 7 December 2022. The acceptance period was extended to 23 December 2022 in order to allow time for a membership check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving 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 included an excerpt from the Employer’s letter dated 3 November 2022, in which the Employer had declined the Union’s written request for recognition dated 31 October 2022. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s response to its request, were attached to the Union’s application.

6) When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union explained that an application was previously submitted for a different bargaining unit at Woodside 1, on 30 September 2022, but it was withdrawn during the acceptance stage. A further application was submitted on 10 November 2022, but this application was premature and therefore it was also subsequently withdrawn. The Union said that its application had now been resubmitted as the 10-day period had expired. 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 700. The Union stated that there were 45 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 23 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 that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union.

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because it was an individual workshop and the skills were not interchangeable with the other workers on site. Further, it consisted of workers within the Woodside 1 workshop, who carried out manual work and were not in a managerial position. In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “No”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 22 November 2022.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’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 31 October 2022. The Employer responded by letter dated 3 November 2022 in which it declined the Union’s request. A copy of the Employer’s letter dated 3 November 2022 was attached to its response.

11) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 22 November 2022. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, nor did it agree with the proposed bargaining unit. It was the Employer’s view that the bargaining unit should include all employees at the site.

12) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had discussed the matter with Acas, by telephone, on 16 November 2022.

13) The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application and said that there were “50 non office/or managers”. The Employer further reiterated its point that it should include all Woodside 1 employees, that would consist of 59 employees. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14) In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated that it believed there were only 13 union members within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

15) When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition the Employer said that from “verbal communications only” it did not believe that a majority would be likely to favour recognition.

16) The Employer stated that a previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit was made on 30 September 2022.

5. The membership and support check

17) 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid up members within that unit (including their full names and dates of birth). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 1 December 2022 from the Case Manager to both parties.

18) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 6 December 2022 and from the Union on 7 December 2022. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

19) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 46 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The following job titles were listed:

• Goods In Operative
• Assembly Supervisor
• Calibration Engineer
• Driver
• Fitter
• Goods Out Operative
• Idnet Operative
• Inspector
• Maintenance Technician
• NDT Xray Technician
• Operations Supervisors
• Production Chaser
• Production Scheduler
• Senior Inspector
• Sheet Metal Supervisor
• Sheet Metal Worker

20) The list of members supplied by the Union contained 25 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 23, a membership level of 50%. The Panel is satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

21) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 9 December 2022 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by the close of business on 14 December 2022.

22) On 16 December 2022, at the request the Union, the Case Manager provided to the Union the names of the two union members who did not appear on the Employer’s list

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

23) In an e-mail to the CAC, dated 20 December 2022, the Union stated that it believed the check carried out by the CAC indicated that it had met the tests set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule.

24) The Union further stated that the job roles of Operations Supervisor, and Production Scheduler, were office-based and therefore it did not believe that they fell within the description of its proposed bargaining unit. The Union said that it did however trust that the Panel would look into this further if its applications was accepted.

25) Further, with regard to the two union members who were not on the Employer’s list, the Union maintained that all of the individuals on its list were in the proposed bargaining unit.

26) Finally, the Union said that since the report was conducted a further worker within the proposed bargaining unit had joined the Union, which evidenced further support.

27) No comments were received from the Employer.

7. Considerations

28) 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 carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

29) 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 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)

30) 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 proposed bargaining unit.

31) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17 - 21 above) showed that 50% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 20 above, the Panel is satisfied that this 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 proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

32) 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. The Panel is tasked therefore to determine likely, not actual, majority support for Union recognition.

33) The Union relied on its density of union membership as evidence that there was majority support for collective bargaining, which the Employer did not dispute.

34) The Panel is of the view that the level of membership within the proposed bargaining unit can be taken as a legitimate indicator of the strength of support for the Union. With an apparent density of membership of 50% in its proposed bargaining unit, the Panel has therefore reached the conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, 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.

35) The Panel notes the Union’s concerns, set out in paragraphs 24 - 25, that the figure of 46 given by the Employer includes two job roles that are not in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union also maintains that all of the individuals on the Union’s list were in the proposed bargaining unit.  In view of its decision that the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36 have been met the Panel has not found it necessary to investigate the Union’s concerns for the purposes of this decision. However this does not preclude the Panel from undertaking further investigations at a later stage of the process should it consider this to be appropriate

8. Decision

36) For the reasons given in paragraphs 29 - 35 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Martin Kirke

Ms Joanna Brown

23 December 2022