Recognition Decision
Updated 3 May 2024
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-unite-the-union-redline-oil-services-limited/recognition-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1389/2024
03 May 2024
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
The Parties:
Unite the Union
and
Redline Oil Services Limited
1. Introduction
1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 16 February 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Redline Oil Services Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Aircraft Refuelers and Allocators working at Gatwick Airport.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “London Gatwick Airport, Gatwick, RH6 0NP.” The application was received by the CAC on 16 February 2024 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 23 February 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 Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, and Mr Martin Kirke, and Ms Claire Sullivan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) By a decision dated 22 March 2024 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. In its response to the Union’s application the Employer agreed that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate bargaining unit.
2. Issues
4) Paragraph 22 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) provides that, if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of these qualifying conditions is fulfilled. The three qualifying conditions are:
(i) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;
(ii) the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;
(iii) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. Paragraph 22(5) provides that “membership evidence” for these purposes is:
(a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or
(b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.
3. The Union’s claim to majority membership and submission it should be recognised without a ballot
5) In a letter dated 22 March 2024 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in a letter dated 27 March 2024, stated that it did claim to have majority membership within the bargaining unit, as evidenced in the CAC’s findings, and therefore submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot.
6) The Union further said that it respectfully wished to point out that the CAC was not entitled to ‘impose, in effect, a threshold for recognition without a ballot higher than that stipulated by the legislators.” The Union said that on this point, it relied upon the decision in ISTC and Fuller Computer Industries Ltd (TUR1/29/00), “which was upheld on an application for judicial review in Re Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd, [2001] IRLR 752.” The Union said that once majority membership is established, the Union should be awarded recognition without a ballot unless there is good reason to hold otherwise. The Union stated that none of the none of the qualifying conditions applied in these circumstances. The Union further explained why it believed that holding a ballot would not be in the interests of good industrial relations. The Union said that said that it had sought to establish good industrial relations both before and during the CAC process without any success.
4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s claim and submission it should be recognised without a ballot
7) On 15 April 2024 the CAC copied the Union’s letter to the Employer and invited it to make submissions on the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and on the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.
8) In a letter to the CAC dated 19 April 2024 the Employer stated that it believed the first qualifying condition applied and that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. The Employer said that it believed a ballot conducted by an appointed Qualified Independent Person would allow the workforce to vote, in a confidential, free and fair manner. The Employer said that a ballot was a quick process that would establish the mandate for recognition within the group without equivocation, and that it would remove any conflicting evidence, which may be given by the small workforce who may wish to remain anonymous. It was the Employer’s view that a ballot was imperative to good industrial relations, and that it would build on the current goodwill in place. Finally, the Employer said that it wished to reiterate its point from earlier correspondence that it would co-operate with the Union if the ballot supported recognition, as it had already done so in other parts of the wider group.
5. Considerations
9) The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must then decide if any of the three conditions in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. If the Panel considers that any of them is fulfilled it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.
10) The membership check issued by the Case Manager on 7 March 2024, described in paragraphs 19-21 of the acceptance decision dated 22 March 2024, showed that 75.68% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and is satisfied that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.
11) The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision as to whether any of the qualifying conditions laid down in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled.
12) The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations The Panel has considered the submissions put forward by both parties and has come to the view that it is not satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. The Panel notes the Employer’s claim, “that it would build on the current goodwill in place”, as well as the more general comments that the Employer has made concerning CAC ballots. However, the Panel does not consider that this shows that a ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations or that there are other sufficient grounds on which a ballot should be held on the question of recognition by reference to the statutory criterion. The Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition does not apply.
13) The second condition is that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced and the Panel is satisfied that this condition does not apply.
14) The third condition is that membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced and the Panel is satisfied that this condition does not apply.
6. Declaration of recognition
15) The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule are met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “Aircraft Refuelers and Allocators working at Gatwick Airport”.
Panel
Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair
Mr Martin Kirke
Ms Claire Sullivan
03 May 2024