Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 25 July 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1292(2022)

12 June 2023

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

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 Chair 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 latterly replaced by Joanne Curtis.

3) By a decision dated 23 December 2022 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. As no agreement was reached, the parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. A virtual hearing was held on 15 March 2023. At the hearing the Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was that specified by the Union in its application, namely “all workers other than managers and office staff located at Woodside 1 aircraft centre”. For the purposes of this definition, the workers excluded from this definition were those categorised as Office staff by the Employer namely General Manager, Quality Manager, Planning, Library, Archives, Production Control and Production Supervisor.

4) In a letter from the Case Manager dated 23 March 2023, the Union was asked whether it claimed that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union. By an e-mail dated 29 March 2023 the Union contended that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit were Union members and therefore believed that recognition should be granted without the need for a ballot.

5) The Employer was sent a copy of the Union’s email and invited to comment on the Union’s claim to majority membership and the paragraph 22(4) qualifying conditions. In a letter from the Employer dated 4 April 2023 it contended that the Union did not have majority membership. The Employer said that the check was carried out in December 2022 which was now out of date and since that time there had been a turnover of staff including starters and leavers. The Employer said that it believed that some of those that had left the business since December 2022 were Union members. Therefore, it was possible that the Union no longer had 50% membership in the bargaining unit. The Employer went on to say that it was also of the view through discussions with workers that the majority of workers within the bargaining unit did not want Union recognition and that there was only a small number of workers that did. The Employer concluded by saying that a ballot of the workers should be carried out to establish if this was what the workers actually wanted, and a further membership check should be carried out.

6) To assist the Panel in deciding whether a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union a further membership check was undertaken. The results of this check were circulated to the Parties on 20 April 2023. The membership check showed that the proportion of Union members in the bargaining unit was 38.98%.

2. Issues

7) On 20 April 2023, the Panel, not satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that a secret ballot would be held. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule, before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

8) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) ended on 5 May 2023. The CAC was not notified by the Union or by both parties jointly that they did not want the ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2) of the Schedule.

3. Unions’ submissions on the form of ballot

9) In an e-mail dated 20 April 2023 the Union stated its preference for a workplace ballot. The Union maintained that in its experience a workplace ballot would help to increase the turnout and engagement in the ballot. The Union emphasised that its aim was to involve as many workers as possible and therefore a workplace ballot would be most likely to lead to a representative result. It stated in a later e mail dated 25 April 2023 that it had concerns regarding the numbers in the bargaining unit. It went on to say “we believe the numbers provided by Inflite for the most recent membership check are inaccurate. We have received a copy of the April holiday booking form at Inflite which states who works in which section. As you know our bargaining unit of all of Woodside 1 less office staff and managers was accepted. We are not necessarily disputing the need for a ballot, rather the amount of people and who will be balloted.”

10) The Panel invited further detail from both parties on their submissions. The Union replied on 6th June reinforcing their view that a workplace ballot should be held on the basis that they believed it would maximise participation and stating its view that postal ballots were “believed” to return a lower turnout.

4. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

11) In an e-mail dated 27 April 2023 the Employer stated its preference for a postal ballot. The Employer explained “from a business perspective to avoid interruption to the business and to allow privacy for our employees and reduce cost for us as a business a postal ballot would be our preference.”

12) The Panel invited further detail from both parties on their submissions. The Employer replied on 1 June, reinforcing their view that a postal ballot should be held. The Employer also set out practicality arguments in that a postal ballot would avoid workplace disruption and regulatory requirements relevant to their sector for visitors to site.

5. Considerations

13) When determining the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:

(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;

(b) costs and practicality;

(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

14) The parties have put forward two different types of ballot for the Panel to consider. The Union have argued for a workplace ballot, whereas the Employer has submitted that the ballot should be a postal ballot.

15) The Panel has considered carefully the arguments put by the Union as to why a postal ballot is not appropriate but is not persuaded by them.  The Panel takes the view that a postal ballot allows workers to arrive at a decision in a neutral environment away from the workplace without the possible danger of undue influence from either party.

16) The Panel has also taken into account the relative cost of a workplace and a postal ballot. In reaching the conclusion that a postal ballot should be ordered, the Panel has borne in mind its experience that a postal ballot is in general less expensive than a workplace ballot which is a further factor in favour of ordering a postal ballot.

6. Decision

17) The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.

18) The name of the QIP appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Martin Kirke

Ms Joanna Brown

12 June 2023