Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 6 July 2020

Case Number: TUR1/1166/2020

13 May 2020

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

Loganair Limited

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 13 March 2020 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Loganair Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit described as: “Cabin Crew within Loganair Limited”. The application was received by the CAC on 16 March 2020 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application that day. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 23 March 2020 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 Professor Kenny Miller, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Gerry Veart. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Linda Lehan.

3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case on two occasions. The initial period expired on 30 March 2020. The acceptance period was extended to 1 May 2020 to allow time for the Panel to obtain more information from the parties and to consider all the evidence. The acceptance period was further extended until 15 May 2020 to allow time for the parties to comment on the membership report and for the Panel to consider these 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 stated that it had made its request for recognition to the Employer on 22 January 2020, a copy of which was attached to their application. The Union stated that the Employer had responded on 10 February 2020 opposing the request as they felt the membership numbers were not at the required level. The Union stated that on 10 February 2020 it asked the Employer if they wished to enter talks at ACAS to allow them to demonstrate that they had membership numbers required for statutory recognition. The Union stated that on 10 February 2020 the Employer rejected the offer. The Union said that it contacted the ACAS Glasgow office and asked if ACAS could contact the Employer to see if they would attend a meeting with themselves and ACAS to allow them, through a membership audit by ACAS, to demonstrate that they had the required membership numbers for recognition and to agree a bargaining unit of Cabin Crew within the UK. The Union stated that the Employer agreed to a meeting which took place on 26 February 2020. The Union said that the Employer agreed that the bargaining unit would be Cabin Crew UK, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man made up of 10 bases but to shrink to 9 bases post the closure on 28 March 2020 of their Norwich base. The Union stated that the membership audit was set for 16 March 2020. The Union said that ACAS set the proposed threshold at 50% plus 1 for the membership number audit and that the Employer rejected this and wanted a 60% threshold. The Union stated that they could not agree to a threshold above statutory limits, regardless of whether membership numbers were greater than 60% or not. The Union said that if normal protocol of ACAS 50% plus 1 was not agreed then they would be forced to make a statutory application to CAC for recognition and mount an associated campaign. The Union stated that they requested the Employer to reconsider their 60% position and agree to 50% plus 1 threshold in keeping with normal ACAS protocols. The Union said that talks were adjourned on 26 February with the Employer committing to give a response within 24 hours to ACAS and that the Employer confirmed in writing to ACAS on 27 February 2020 maintaining their position of 60% threshold

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 answered ‘No’. 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 693. The Union stated that there were 136 workers in the bargaining unit, of whom 82 were members of the Union. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union stated that over 50% of the bargaining unit were in membership; over 50% of the bargaining unit had signed a petition in support of wanting Unite to collectively bargain for Cabin Crew and over 50% of the bargaining unit had signed an individual declaration in support of wanting Unite to collectively bargain for Cabin Crew. The Union stated that a petition and declarations had been signed on line due to the localities and some had also signed hard copies. The Union said that they were prepared to provide this information if required to the CAC or ACAS in confidence. The Union attached to their application a summary of these documents.

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because the bargaining unit had been decided upon with the agreement of the Employer, as an objectively justifiable group that operated on terms and conditions and did the same or broadly similar work with Loganair. The Union stated that the bargaining unit was agreed at ACAS Glasgow on 26 February 2020 and the Employer indicated that the numbers within the bargaining unit were 136 which included Cabin Crew and Online Trainers but excluded the 3 Managers. The Union stated that the Employer had an Employee Forum for this bargaining unit group which it accepted had been non-functioning due to management commitment but was attempting to currently reinvigorate the forum. The Union stated that the Employer had advertised for Staff Reps for this as a bargaining unit as per a Flyer they released coincidently on 26 February 2020 the same day as the Employer attended ACAS.

9) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence and enclosed a copy of the certificate. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 13 March 2020.

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 by email on 22 January 2020 (voluntary recognition request). The Employer enclosed a copy of their response dated 10 February 2020 and stated that a meeting was held with ACAS and Unite to discuss the request for voluntary recognition on 26 February 2020.

11) The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form by email on 13 March 2020 with a paper copy then being received in the post. 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 and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer stated that they already had a voluntary recognition agreement in effect with an alternative trade union, the GMB, for the purpose of collective bargaining for Cabin Crew and did not intend or wish an agreement with any other trade union. When asked if such Union had a certificate of independence the Employer answered yes, the GMB had a certificate of independence. The Employer attached a copy of this agreement to its response which was signed on 16 March 2020.

12) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, a meeting was held on 26 February 2020 chaired by ACAS to discuss the request for voluntary agreement and that there had also been discussions with ACAS in advance of the meeting.

13) The Employer stated that it did agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application in that there were 136 Cabin Crew.

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 the numbers were correct in terms of Cabin Crew employees. 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 answered n/a.

15) When asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit the Employer stated that it was not aware of any previous application by Unite and when asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining the Employer stated that no other applications for statutory recognition had been received.

5. Summary of the Union’s comments on the Employer’s response

16) On 24 March 2020 the Case Manager wrote to the Union inviting it to comment on the Employer’s response. In a letter dated 30 March 2020 the Union stated it noted that the Employer was saying that there was already a recognition agreement in place with the GMB. The Union stated that it noted that the recognition agreement was signed with the GMB after its application for recognition was received by the CAC, the application was submitted on the 13th March 2020 and the agreement was signed on the 16th March 2020. On 31st March 2020 the Union forwarded to the CAC a copy of a letter sent to them by the GMB which stated “Thanks for clarifying the position with Unite and Loganair. Our organiser entered into an agreement with Loganair in good faith. We did not know there was a CAC application in from Unite with Loganair. We want to behave honourably with yourselves and I have formally notified Loganair that we have withdrawn from our collective agreement. Please feel free to use this correspondence with ACAS and the Employer as part of the CAC process as appropriate.”

6. Summary of Employer’s response to Union’s letter of 30 March 2020

17) In a letter to the Case Manager dated 2 April 2020 the Employer stated that the draft voluntary recognition agreement was received from the GMB, signed and returned to the GMB before Loganair was notified by the CAC that Unite had actually submitted a statutory recognition application. The Employer stated that when contact was made by Unite for voluntary recognition, several managers in Loganair suggested that a relationship with the GMB or Prospect, for example, would be more productive.

18) The Employer stated that it noted the letter sent to Unite from the GMB advising Loganair that they had withdrawn from the voluntary agreement. The Employer pointed out that Clause 11 of the agreement related to how parties ought to end the agreement, notably by giving either party 6 months’ notice and it was regrettable that the GMB had advised as they had. The Employer stated that the agreement would, nevertheless, continue until the notice period elapses at which point the GMB could withdraw themselves if they still so decide.

19) The Employer stated that it was important to note that with Loganair entering into a voluntary recognition agreement with the GMB, it clearly showed an openness to engage with a progressive trade union. The Employer said it was not against recognition per se, it already had a voluntary recognition agreement with BALPA (which had operated successfully since 2000). The Employer said that they had concerns relating to the nature of the anticipated relationship that would function, disappointingly, with Unite, if there was recognition. The Employer said their concern was based on the fact that they were aware that Unite had been organising a concerted campaign within the cabin crew group, including circulation of a list of those who had and who had not joined Unite, with pressure then being placed on individuals who had not joined within the Glasgow crew base (essentially seeking to create a “closed shop”). The Employer said that this was currently under investigation and could result in disciplinary proceedings for bullying and harassment. The Employer said that there was no clear indication as to whether Unite full-time officials were aware or complicit in this behaviour, however, if they did find evidence of Unite complicity in this issue, they would be issuing a formal complaint.

20) The Employer said that against this background it was logical and natural for them, as an Employer, to look at all available options including recognition of an alternative union to represent their staff and work on a constructive basis with them as an Employer. The Employer said they were perfectly within their right to decide as to which union they would recognise.

7. Summary of Union’s response to Employer’s letter dated 2 April 2020

21) The Union in a letter to the CAC dated 7 April stated that the question for determination by the CAC at this stage in proceedings is as follows: An application under paragraph 11 or 12 is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the relevant bargaining unit The employer says that there is a collective agreement with GMB “in force”. The union says that there is not. On 16 March 2020, the employer invited GMB to enter into a collective agreement. This agreement was not legally binding on either party. However, it contained a provision that the agreement could be terminated by either party on six months’ notice. This provision was binding in honour only. On 06 April, following discussions between GMB and Unite, GMB decided to unilaterally withdraw from the collective agreement with Loganair with immediate effect and without notice. GMB Scotland Secretary categorised the status of the agreement from GMB’s perspective as being “null and void”. The Union enclosed a copy of an email from GMB to Loganair which said “I wrote to you previously on the issue of union recognition. As I explained I was not aware that Unite had a CAC application in regarding recognition with your business. Given this fact and with the principles and protocols we operate by as trade unions, any agreement with us is null and void.” The Union stated that the agreement had not been terminated with notice, it had been terminated with immediate effect and was no longer “in force”.

22) The Union stated that an agreement cannot be “in force” if; a) one of the parties to the agreement has declared that it is null and void; b) neither party intends to render any performance under the contract; c) one of the parties entered into the agreement on the basis of induced error (as to the existence of an alternative union); d) the agreement has been terminated by one party without notice; and e) the agreement lacks any formal legal status which would allow it to subsist for the period of any notice.

23) The Union said that by way of analogy, if an employee unilaterally terminates his contract of employment without notice, declares it null and void and refuses to provide any performance under the contract then the employer may take legal action for breach of contract. However, they cannot say that the employment contract is still “in force”- on the contrary, it is precisely because the agreement is not still “in force” that the employer can raise an action for breach of contract. Similarly, while GMB may or may not be in breach of their agreement with the employer by failing to provide them with 6 months’ notice, it simply cannot be said that the agreement itself is “in force”.

24) Finally, the Union stated that there being no collective agreement “in force”, their application should be determined as soon as possible and should be deemed admissible.

8. Summary of Employer’s response to Union’s letter of 7 April 2020

25) The Employer in a letter to the CAC dated 16 April 2020 stated that the main concern held was that despite there being a voluntary recognition agreement already in place, with effect, 16th March 2020, which was entered into by both parties in good faith, Unite, by their own admission in their letter of 7th April 2020, made clear that they must have contacted GMB with a view to persuading GMB to step aside from working with Loganair: “On 06 April, following discussions between GMB and Unite, GMB decided to unilaterally withdraw from the collective agreement with Loganair with immediate effect and without notice”.

26) The Employer said that it felt that the conduct of Unite was tantamount to unfair practice and within Schedule A1, it is specified by clause 35 (1) that:

“An application under paragraph 11 or 12 is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the relevant bargaining unit”.

27) The Employer stated that the purpose of clause 35 (1) is to: “prevent a trade union abusing the statutory recognition procedure by seeking to disrupt an existing recognition agreement between the employer and a rival union” (IDS Employment Law Handbook, Trade Unions, May 2018, p188). The Employer stated that it as abundantly clear that Unite sought to disrupt the existing recognition agreement between GMB and Loganair.

28) The Employer stated that if Unite had not contacted the GMB, on the balance of probabilities, the voluntary recognition agreement between GMB and Loganair would be in existence and operating. The GMB have stepped aside after having been asked to do so.

29) The Employer felt it pertinent to highlight that while Loganair was aware that Unite wished a recognition agreement, the formation of the agreement between GMB and Loganair was signed and concluded prior to Loganair being made aware of Unite’s application for statutory recognition.

30) The Employer stated that the letter from Unite makes continual claim that the agreement between GMB and Loganair is not in force. But as highlighted above, if the view is taken that the agreement is not in force, that is the direct consequence of Unite agitating in the background. The Employer said that it was also concerning to note in Unite’s letter that: “this provision was binding in honour only”. Within the context of industrial relations voluntarism, that the concept of honour is disparaged in such a casual manner is a material concern. In the event that there was ever a relationship between Loganair and Unite, this treatment of honour would seem to make any agreement worthless or at best an agreement that was regarded by Unite as being of unilateral worth only. This is not the required approach for a constructive and progressive working relationship to function.

31) The Employer asked that the CAC consider:

(1) whether or not the agreement between GMB and Loganair would have continued, had Unite not contacted GMB (clearly with the aim of disrupting an existing agreement); and

(2) if that agreement had remained in place (in the absence of Unite’s interference), would Unite’s application for statutory recognition be admissible?

The Employer said that it is argued that the correct responses to the above two questions would be (1) yes and (2) no.

32) The Employer stated that due to the conduct of Unite, Loganair resisted the application for statutory recognition and for the good of wider industrial relations, the unfair nature of Unite’s conduct should be made clear to the GMB, opening the door for that voluntary agreement to continue.

33) The Employer stated that for the record, prior to GMB advising of their changed adopted position, the GMB had made no contact with Loganair, to discuss or ask any questions. Unite had contacted the GMB and the GMB then advised of a changed position and the CAC was invited to draw its own inferences from that.

34) The Employer in a further email dated 20 April 2020 confirmed that it was the company’s position that the voluntary recognition agreement between Loganair and GMB remained in place and was effective.

9. The Membership Check

35) To assist in the application of the admissibility tests 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 name and date 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 27 April 2020 from the Case Manager to both parties. The information from the Union and the Employer was received by the CAC on 29 April 2020. The Panel is satisfied that the check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

36) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 138 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 77 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 74, a membership level of 53.62%.

37) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 29 April 2020 and the parties were invited to comment on the result.

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

38) The Union in a letter to the CAC dated 4 May 2020 said that they noted that the bargaining unit has risen to 138 from the stated position of Loganair of 136 at their meeting with ACAS on 26th February 2020 at ACAS Glasgow Office. The Union said that in good faith it had removed members from their list that they believed were made redundant due to the closure of the Norwich base which they were informed by Loganair closed on 29th March 2020.

39) The Union stated that they noted that 4 employees were furloughed and thus reinstated and whilst they were not against this practice, indeed had promoted it with other employers, without providing names they may have had members that required to be added to the list they supplied to the CAC.

40) With regard to the 3 names that did not exist on the Employer list of workers, which the CAC disclosed to them, their interim findings were that 2 of the workers had confirmed they are still employed by Loganair. The Union did not understand as to why these individuals had been omitted from the Employers list.

41) The Union stated that further to their discussions previously around evidence to support the Unite the Union application by employees and Unite members within Loganair, they had amassed a Petition and Individual Declarations to this end. Due to the situation with the Covid-19 virus and access to their systems, initial thoughts of the CAC were that it would not be able to correlate this data in the format available at that time (which was only IP addresses). The Union stated it could now supply the evidence to the CAC, in confidence, in a format that would be verifiable and be able to be correlate in relation to the employers list.

42) The Employer, in an email to the Case Manager dated 4 May 2020, stated that the issues they maintain are those within their letter to the CAC dated 16th April and the issue primarily was that “but for” the interference of Unite, contacting GMB and clearly asking them to stand aside, the voluntary agreement would continue to function. There was a legitimate collective agreement already in place, which was not with Unite.

43) The Employer explained that it had a productive agreement in place, and had since 2000, with BALPA and that the company was not against working with trade unions. The Employer said that it takes the strong view that there was a voluntary collective agreement in place with the GMB prior to being made aware of Unite’s application for statutory recognition and Unite deliberately undermined that agreement for its own ends. The Employer stated that that was not legal or in the ethos of the statutory recognition legislation.

44) The Employer stated that it held firm its view that Unite’s application for statutory recognition clearly breached legislation, by asking the GMB to stand aside; the application cannot be accepted as there was already a voluntary recognition bargaining agreement in place for the bargaining unit. The Employer stated that, but for the unacceptable conduct of Unite, the GMB agreement would continue to function. The Employer stated that the actions of Unite, if left unchecked, would undermine the value of having a voluntary agreement, which was most unwanted and represented a position where one TU party “asks” another to stand aside and that is not acceptable. Industrial relations in the United Kingdom is based on voluntarism and to have such an agreement effectively hijacked, by Unite, for its own interests, was heavily damaging.

45) Finally, the Employer maintained that the application for Unite’s statutory recognition should be dismissed for the reasons and facts made clear.

11. Considerations

46) 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.

47) 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, 34 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the application is inadmissible under paragraph 35 and whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

12. Paragraph 35

48) Paragraph 35(1) states that an application to the CAC is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the bargaining unit proposed by the Union. The question that the Panel must address is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the Union’s application is rendered inadmissible by virtue of paragraph 35. The Panel has had to consider the application of this paragraph in the exceptional circumstances of this case. In doing so we took cognisance of the particular circumstances in which the two unions found themselves but also recognised the potential impact on industrial relations of one of the parties resiling from the agreement without notice.

49) The Employer submits that its agreement with the GMB is a collective agreement that is already in force. It relies on the wording of the termination clause in the agreement and it argues that, notwithstanding the fact that the GMB has given notice of termination, the agreement remains in force for the 6 months notice period and that accordingly the Union’s application must fail.

50) The Union submits that the GMB abandoned the agreement once it became aware that Unite had lodged a statutory application for recognition with the CAC. The consequence, according to the Union, is that the agreement ceased to be in force once GMB terminated its agreement with Loganair and that accordingly paragraph 35 does not defeat its application.

51) The email sent from GMB to Loganair on 6 April 2020 sent to the CAC by Unite on 7 April 2020 clearly indicates that the GMB did not give notice of termination pursuant to the clause in the collective agreement requiring 6 months’ notice of termination. It stated in the email that they were not aware that Unite had a CAC application regarding recognition with Loganair and given that fact, and with the principles and protocols they operate as a trade union, any agreement with Loganair was null and void.

52) The legislation says ‘an application is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is recognised’. An agreement can only exist if two or more parties are prepared to honour that agreement. As the GMB have made it clear they terminated the agreement without notice and intend to have no further engagement with the employer. This means that the GMB no longer regard the agreement as having any existence or force and will not abide by its terms. As already indicated, it is hard to deem how an agreement can still be in force when one of the parties has abandoned it. Given these circumstances it is the view of the Panel that no collective bargaining agreement now exists.

53) In the light of these considerations, the Panel concludes that for the purposes of paragraph 35 there is no collective agreement that is already in force, and therefore that the Union’s application is not to be rendered inadmissible by virtue of paragraph 35.

13. Paragraph 36(1)(a)

54) 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.

55) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 53.62% of the workers were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 35 above 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.

14. Paragraph 36(1)(b)

56) 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.

57) The Union put forward the argument that there are two more employees in the bargaining unit than at the time of the meeting with ACAS and the Employer on 26 February 2020. The check is a snapshot of a moment in time to enable the Panel to assess whether the tests under paragraph 36 are satisfied. We accept that changes to the composition of the bargaining unit may occur as workers join and depart the company and there would be similar changes in the Union’s membership figures as members come and go. But the Panel needs to have baseline in order to consider whether or not the tests are satisfied so that it can make a decision and the statutory process can continue to the next stage if appropriate.

58) The Union also stated that they had removed members from their list as they believed they were made redundant due to the closure of the Norwich base but noticed that the employees, who were made redundant, had been reinstated and then were furloughed. The Union stated that certain members may have been required to be added to the list due to this. The Union also confirmed that they were now in a position to supply both the petition and the individual declarations of support for Unite for collective bargaining within Loganair from Cabin Crew Staff in a format which was verifiable and which the CAC would be able to correlate in relation to the Employer’s list.

59) As the level of union membership as it stood was 53.63% the Panel did not feel it necessary to revisit the membership check and conduct a further check against the petition and the individual declarations of support. The Panel considers that union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, 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.

15. Decision

60) For the reasons given above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Professor Kenny Miller, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Gerry Veart

13 May 2020