Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 9 June 2022

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1246(2021)

16 February 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

Marlow Foods Limited (t/a Quorn Foods)

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 17 December 2021 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Marlow Foods Limited (t/a Quorn Foods) (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All employees within the BF1 Plant.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “BF1 Plant, Belasis Site.” The application was received by the CAC on 17 December 2021 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 December 2021 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 Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Joanna Brown and William O’Shaughnessy. 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 5 January 2022. The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions in order to allow time for a membership check and a revised check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent reports and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving at a decision. Time was finally extended to 16 February 2022 to enable the Panel to finalise its 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 sent a request letter to the Employer on 23 December 2021. By e-mail dated 6 December 2021 the Employer responded, referring to an earlier letter that it had sent to the Union, in which the Employer had requested membership data from the Union, and informed the Union that it was declining its request for voluntary recognition. A copy of the Union’s request, the Employer’s e-mail of 3 December 2021 by way of its response to that request, and the Employer’s letter of 2 December 2021 were attached to its 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 did not respond. 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 958, and there were 41 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 27 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 said “We have a petition of 34 out of 41 employees, who would like to request Unite the Union is recognised for collective bargaining and representation purposes.”

8) When asked for its reasons for selecting its proposed bargaining unit, the Union explained that its members were “wide-spread across the bargaining unit”, and that it was a separate business across the Belasis Site. The Union therefore believed that it made sense from a collective bargaining perspective. The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

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 17 December 2021.

10) Finally, the Union said there had not been a previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, nor was there an existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

11) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 19 November 2021 seeking recognition for all employees in Belasis BF1 (Food Production Areas). The Employer explained that it responded on 2 December 2021, and that it received a further letter from the Union the following day, 3 December 2021. The Employer said that it was still awaiting a response to the questions and points of clarification that the Employer had raised in its letter of 2 December 2021. A copy of the Union’s letter of 2 December 2021 was attached to its response.

12) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s latest application form from the Union on 3 December 2021. 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. Furthermore, the Employer did not believe that there was a demand or need for a BF1 bargaining group. The Employer maintained that the workforce was happy with the current arrangements, and that its preference was to continue to engage directly with its teams without the structure and obligations brought about by a bargaining group arrangement which, the Employer believed, would be detrimental to direct engagement. The Employer further explained that whilst it respected the historic arrangements for existing agreements, they covered a separate legacy group and the rest of Quorn Belasis were independent of that group. The Employer said that it had asked the Union for the level of representation at Belasis BF1 but it was yet to receive this information.

13) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas be requested to assist as it was still awaiting details of the points of clarification from the Union.

14) When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application, the Employer said that presuming the bargaining unit proposed was the BF1 plant, this was a mix of management, admin, and food production colleagues. In total the number was approximately 52 employees. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

15) 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 bargaining group was unclear, and an estimate of membership was amongst its request for further information from the Union.

16) 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 it did not believe there was demand for representation and that the workforce were happy with their current arrangements. Furthermore, whilst the Employer respected the longstanding current arrangements for sections of the workforce at the Belasis site, they were a separate legacy group and the rest of Quorn Belasis were independent of that group. The Employer re-iterated its point that it had requested information from the Union, including the level of representation at the site, but the Union had failed to produce any evidence

17) When asked both whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, and whether it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered “None”.

5. The membership and support check

18) 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 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 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed independent checks of the level of union membership within the bargaining unit and the number of workers in the unit who had signed an e-petition supporting recognition of the Union. 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 and a copy of an e-petition in support of recognition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 17 January 2022 from the Case Manager to both parties. The information from the Employer was received by the CAC on 19 January 2022 and from the Union on 20 January 2022

19) The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 42 workers and the list supplied by the Union contained the names of 26 members. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 20, a membership level of 47.62%.

20) The Union also provided the results of an e-petition. This took the form of a spreadsheet which consisted of 5 columns headed: “First Name”, “Last Name”, “EMT – engineering manufacturing Technician, MT – Manufacturing technician, GO – general Operator – Core Agency”, “Shift”, and “Signed Petition”. There were 41 typed entries on the spreadsheet, of which 34 had a “YES” beneath the heading “Signed Petition”. The Union also provided a timestamp for the completed petitions, which ranged between 7 December 2021 and 23 December 2021.

21) The Union explained that the e-petition was carried out using Google forms. Members were e-mailed a link to the petition and they were asked to share the link with any non-members who wished to support the “Recognition Campaign for Unite to be the Union at BF1”. A link to the e-petition was issued within an e-mail dated 7 December 2021, which contained the following text:

“Hello to all Members at BF1

I emailed you all an Update Newsletter yesterday with all the information. “PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TODAY”

TO STRENGTHEN THE PETITION EVIDENCE PLEASE ASK NON MEMBERS TO SIGN TOO SHARE THE LINK

THE MORE WORKERS AT BF1 THAT SIGN THE QUICKER YOU WIN THIS CAMPAIGN!

---

We are not wasting any time supporting you with the Union Recognition campaign so you can start to enjoy the Benefits of a Collective strong Union Voice at work. I am with you every step of the way!

Any questions or concerns you have my number just ring or text me.

LET’S GET THIS DONE

YOUR VOICE YOUR CHOICE

Thank You Samantha your Union Organiser for BF1

The formal application we are sending to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) requires a petition of evidence to show that a majority of workers at BF1 wish to have Unite as their Union to Recognise you Unite members for collective bargaining & representation.

We are not wasting any time, I assured you all that we will work as fast as we can to get you your Union at work Recognised.

Kind Regards & Stay Safe

In Unity

Samantha Firth-Corner

Union Organiser.”

The e-petition that could be accessed via the link was set out as follows:

“Workers United at BF1

We, the undersigned workers at BF1, Quorn Foods, Nelson Avenue, Billingham TS23 4HA express our desire to have Unite the Union recognised for collective bargaining and representation purposes.

We were not placed under duress of any kind to sign this petition and have taken part of our own free will.

Please note that you do not need to be a union member in order to sign this petition.

**Unite the Union takes confidentiality very seriously - ALL information that is provided on this petition will NOT be shared outside of Unite the Union and will ONLY be used in conjunction with this campaign. To read our privacy policy, see here: ____________

The Data will be shared with the Advisory, conciliation & Arbitration Service (ACAS) as part of the formal recognition application process to Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) but no other 3rd parties.

Not a member? Join Unite today - make your voices heard: ____________

______________to save your progress. Learn more”

Beneath this were boxes for individuals to enter their full name, Job Title/Role, e-mail address, and mobile number. The petition then asked for their “Digital Signature (please type your initials)”.

22) The check of the e-petition showed that it had been signed by 24 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 57.14% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of the 24 signatories, 17 were members of the Union (40.48% of the bargaining unit) and 7 were non-members (16.66% of the bargaining unit).

23) A report of the result of the checks was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 24 January 2022 and the parties’ comments invited. The Panel is satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

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

24) In an e-mail to the CAC, dated 25 January 2022, the Union stated that it believed it had satisfied both tests as required by paragraph 36 of the Schedule. The Union also explained that it believed there may have been some confusion caused by documents it had submitted with the results of its e-petition and it believed that a couple of employees, who had also signed its petition, had not been accounted for within the report.

25) The Employer submitted its comments over three e-mails received by the CAC on 25 January 2022.

26) In relation to the Union’s petition, the Employer said that it did not believe it represented, or explained, the current union membership in BF1. Nor did it cover all of the workers within the group, and therefore it could not be relied upon. The Employer believed that it was important to note that the “incomplete, unrepresentative Unite survey was taken some time ago.” The Employer also believed that those contacted by the Union did not understand the purpose or implications of membership in relation to subscriptions or the role that the Union was proposing.

27) The Employer explained that it had omitted the Engineering Maintenance Technicians’ roles when sharing its data with the CAC, and that they also needed to be added to BF1 group. The Employer said that they were not part of any other bargaining group. The Employer offered to supply the names of those workers to the CAC “so that the group could be complete and fair.”

28) The Employer submitted that it wished to challenge some of the Union’s assumptions concerning the job roles in the bargaining unit, which the Employer believed were incorrect. The Employer believed that the Union had included management roles which, the Employer stated, were not in the proposed bargaining unit. Those roles were: Operations Manager, Forming Manager (Vacant), 4 x Lease Manufacturing Technician / Shift Leader (Manager), Hygiene Manager, and Quality Manager.

29) The Employer argued that there were several people represented within the Union’s survey, who were no longer within the business or that they were in management roles as stated in paragraph 28 above. The Employer offered to share the job descriptions of those management roles to demonstrate that they were “true management roles”.

30) Finally, the Employer stated that it had omitted a further important point in its earlier comments to the CAC. The Employer explained that Agency workers were not employed by Quorn as they were employed via the agency provider on an as and when basis. This included what the Union had described as core agency, employed via the agency provider. It was the Employer’s view that those workers should be removed from the Union’s figures and percentages as those agency employees were not provided within the Employer’s list. The Employer believed that this illustrated that the Union’s survey was unreliable, false and did not have substance.

7. Considerations

31) 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.

32) 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.

8. Paragraph 36(1)(a)

33) 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. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 - 19 above) showed that 47.62% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 23 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.

9. Paragraph 36(1)(b)

34) 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 notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 57.14% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (24 out of 42 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition of the Union (see paragraph 22 above). Of those who had signed the petition 17 were Union members (40.48% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 7 were non-members (16.66% of the proposed unit).

35) The Panel notes the Employer’s concerns that some individuals on the Union’s petition had left the Employer’s employment, and that roles were included that did not fall within the description of the proposed bargaining unit. However, the Case Manager’s comparison against the Union’s petition discounted the signatures of any workers who were not in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Panel also notes the Employer’s comments that the data shared with the CAC for the purpose of the check omitted 9 workers as they were “not part of any bargaining group.” The Panel wishes to emphasise that appropriateness of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is an issue that will, if necessary, be considered by the Panel at a later stage of the statutory recognition process

36) On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, that 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.

10. Decision

37) For the reasons given in paragraphs 32 - 36 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Ms Joanna Brown

Mr William O’Shaughnessy

16 February 2022