Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 28 July 2020

Case Number: TUR1/1165/2020

07 July 2020

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

Sandvik Osprey Limited

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC, dated 10 March 2020, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Sandvik Osprey Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All Hourly Paid Production Workers and Maintenance Engineers, employed at; Red Jackets Works, Milland Road, Neath, SA11 1NJ.” The application was received by the CAC on 12 March 2020 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 13 March 2020. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC, dated 25 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 Kenneth Miller, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Nick Caton and Mr Paul Noon OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3) By a decision dated 24 April 2020 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, and, in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, the parties were invited to makes submissions on the method by which the hearing to determine the issue of the bargaining unit should be held. The Union in a letter, dated 22 May 2020, had asked for the matter to be determined based on the parties’ written submissions. The Employer, in a letter, dated 26 May 2020, had stated its preference for an in-person public hearing to be held when the current restrictions were lifted. In a letter, dated 1 June 2020, the parties were informed that the Panel would seek to determine the matter based on the parties’ written submissions. The parties were also informed that should any further questions arise from those submissions the Panel would then consider what further steps needed to be taken to address these outstanding issues.

4) To assist in this determination the parties were requested to make written submissions related to the question of the bargaining unit by 10 June 2020. The Union’s and the Employer’s submissions were received by the CAC on 9 and 10 June 2020, respectively. On 10 June 2020 the submissions were cross copied. The parties were then given the opportunity to comment on the other party’s submission before the Panel made its determination. By emails, dated 17 June 2020, the Employer made its closing comments. In an e-mail, dated 23 June 2020, the Union stated that it did not wish to make any further comments.

5) The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule to the Act, to decide whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. Paragraph 19B(1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need. The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate.

2. Summary of the submission made by the Union

6) It was the Union’s view that the bargaining unit should comprise “All Hourly Paid Production Workers and Maintenance Engineers”, all of whom were located at Red Jackets Works, Neath.

7) The Union clarified that its reference to hourly paid workers within the proposed bargaining unit reflected those employees, who were paid an hourly rate of pay, albeit they received their pay on a weekly basis.

8) The Union submitted that there were differences in the terms and conditions of salary staff and weekly paid/hourly rate (production) staff within the bargaining unit. For example, the Sick Pay Scheme and payment whilst on sick leave/absence. The Union made reference to the “Sandvik Osprey Ltd – Employee Handbook”, which the Union stated, sets out the following rates of pay for sickness:

“Weekly paid personnel – entitlement All weekly personnel accrue a maximum of 16 sick days per annum. This can accumulate to a maximum of 256 days. Once they reach the maximum days accrued then no further days can be accrued.

Weekly paid personnel – amount payable Weekly paid personnel will receive 50% of their normal daily rate for the first day, or part of a day of sickness, and 80% of their normal daily rate for subsequent days of sickness. Employees who run out of sick pay will be paid SSP in line with current legislation.

Monthly paid personnel - entitlement All monthly personnel accrue 20 days sick days per annum. This can accumulate to a maximum of 260 days. Once they reach the maximum days accrued then no further days can be accrued.

Monthly paid personnel – amount payable Monthly paid personnel will receive full salary. Employees who run out of sick pay will be paid SSP.”

9) The Union further stated that the Employee Handbook, also differentiates between the weekly and monthly paid staff with regard to the “Attendance Policy – Recording Attendance”, in which the Union said, it stated; . “The company operates a formal time recoding system for all weekly paid personnel. It is the duty of all weekly paid personnel to use this system fully. The company does not operate a formal time recoding system for monthly personnel. . .”

10) The Union maintained that there was no collective bargaining currently taking place within the undertaking. There was an imposition of remuneration increases by the business, however there was no opportunity for employees to engage meaningfully to ascertain their wage structure. The Union said that there was a desire within the bargaining unit to have collective bargaining and that this was further demonstrated by the findings of the Case Manager’s Membership and Support check reported to the parties on 8 April 2020.

11) The Union referred to a statement made by the Employer in its response to the Union’s application, that “The segregation makes no sense for the purpose of bargaining on pay because our annual salary reviews are determined by our parent company on a country level not on a site level. Furthermore, annual pay increases apply to the site as a whole, that is to say all employees receive the same percentage pay increases each year whether weekly or monthly paid. This is done to create a sense of fairness across the business. Splitting weekly and monthly paid annual salary reviews would create a division between the two groups. On this basis, there is no basis for Unite to negotiate with Sandvik Osprey in relation to annual salary reviews.” The Union stated that its interpretation of the Employer’s statement was that no collective bargaining had taken place, nor was there a need, as there seemed to be an element of imposition. On the contrary, under the heading “Salary – Salary Review” of the Employee Handbook, it stated “Each individual’s salary is as stated in the employment agreement and will normally be subject to annually or where applicable by negotiation with the relevant trade union. . .”

12) The Union stated that, for the record, it wished to add that Unite were responsible for collective bargaining at the Coventry Torrington Avenue Site, for pay, hours and holidays. The Union said that there was not therefore, a determination by the parent company on a ‘country wide’ basis.

13) The Union stated that its proposed bargaining unit was a discrete unit further evidenced by the fact that disciplinary and grievance procedures for hourly rate/weekly paid employees were dealt with by Management (salary staff), who were outside the production roles.

14) The Union submitted that the proposed bargaining unit did not conflict with effective management. In addressing the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within the undertaking, the Union referred to Lidl Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee [2017] EWAC Civ 328. The Union asked that the Panel adopt the same approach as taken in this case. The Court of Appeal had subsequently held that the CAC had correctly applied the statutory test, namely, that the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within a single undertaking requires more than one small fragmented bargaining unit in existence before the desirability of avoiding such a unit becomes relevant.

15) The Union stated that there was no evidence of further conflicting applications for collective bargaining. The workers in the bargaining unit were an easily identifiable group, evidenced mainly by their hourly rate pay structure paid on a weekly basis, all of whom were based at a single location.

16) The Union emphasised that the test was not for the Panel to determine whether the proposed bargaining unit was the most effective bargaining unit, only whether it was compatible with effective management. The Union believed that collective bargaining rights for the proposed bargaining unit would not necessarily conflict with any ‘one company ethos’ policy or principle.

17) Finally, the Union referred to Cable & Wireless Services UK Limited v Central Arbitration Committee [2008] EWHC 115. The Union said that this was the correct approach, the Union further quoted “Dismissing the claim . . . required the committee, when considering whether a proposed bargaining unit was appropriate . . . that although small fragmented bargaining units were in themselves undesirable, what was regarded as undesirable was the rest of the proliferation of such units likely to result from the creation of a unit lacking in any obviously identifiable boundary”.

18) Finally, the Union stated that its proposed bargaining unit was a distinct group of employees working in the production unit/sector of the undertaking. It would not lead to further fragmentation and proliferation of separate units within business, and it would allow effective management of the business.

3. Summary of the submission made by the Employer

19) The Employer stated that it had no objection to recognising the Union if there was majority support in an appropriate bargaining unit. However, it believed that the only appropriate bargaining unit was one comprising “All Sandvik Osprey Limited employees based at Red Jackets Works, Milland Road, Neath, SA11 1NJ, with the exception of the Managing Director”. This bargaining unit would capture all of the company’s employees except the Managing Director and a Business Development Manager who is located in the United States.

20) In response to the Union’s reference to “hourly paid” within the description of the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated that no employees were hourly paid, and this was not disputed by the Union. The Employer stated that it had nevertheless co-operated in the spirit of trying to achieve good industrial relations and recognised that the union appeared to have in mind the weekly paid staff, who were on a basic wage. However, their hours worked could affect their pay, for example regarding overtime payments.

21) A witness statement from Ms Marium Dodds, HR Business Partner, was attached to the Employer’s submissions. Ms Dodds further explained that employees were split into two types of pay groups, those who were monthly paid (received the same pay each month) and those who were weekly paid (received their pay on a weekly basis). Weekly paid employees worked a set number of hours each week for which they received a set basic weekly salary. In addition to this, if they worked a shift pattern, they received a shift allowance on top. If they worked overtime hours, they also received enhanced pay for this. For the purpose of calculating weekly pay variances an hourly figure is used.

22) With regard to monthly paid employees, they tended to be more office-based (Accounting/Health and Safety/Administration etc.) Weekly paid employees tended to be production and engineering staff, most of whom worked on shifts. Although there are some differences in the terms and conditions of different roles within the company, on the whole, the benefits were the same for all employees. For example, holidays (25 days per year plus 8 bank holidays), pension plans, life insurance, disability scheme, gym discounts, family policies etc.

23) The main differences between those who were weekly paid and those who were paid monthly was the level of sick pay, and the ability to earn overtime. Weekly paid employees could earn overtime at enhanced rates. Monthly paid employees could not. Weekly paid employees were entitled to 16 days sick per year up to a maximum of 256 days and they were paid 50% of daily rate on the first day of sickness and 80% thereafter. Monthly paid employees were entitled to 20 days per annum, up to a maximum of 260 days, and were paid basic from day one.

24) The Employer continued, emphasising that the factors in 19B(3) feed into an assessment of compatibility with effective management under 19(2)(a) (paragraph 15 of Lidl Ltd. v Central Arbitration Committee & Another [2017] IRLR 646, CA). In considering the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management the Panel is not required to decide on the most effective form of management, merely that what is decided is compatible with effectiveness, following Buxton LJ, in R v Central Arbitration Committee ex parte Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd [2002] ICR 1212, who supported the construction of ‘compatible’ as meaning ‘consistent’ or ‘able to co-exist with’.

25) The Employer explained that it was one company within the Sandvik Group in the UK and the Group operates across eight sites. It was based at the Red Jackets Works site (with the exception of the one individual in the US), and therefore effectively the union’s bargaining unit equated to “all [hourly/weekly] paid production workers and maintenance engineers in the company”. The Employer said that not all production workers or maintenance engineers in the company were hourly paid. Nor were all of the weekly paid employees production workers or maintenance engineers and nor were they in the same product team within the company.

26) The Employer submitted that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit cuts across the management structure by product, by function, by department and by pay cycle. The multi-dimensional disjuncture with the existing management structure made the Union’s proposed bargaining unit incompatible with effective management. A witness statement from Dr Andrew Coleman, Managing Director of Sandvik Osprey, was attached to the Employer’s submissions. Dr Coleman explained that there were two main products manufactured at Sandvik Osprey; metal Powders and CEA and each production unit had both weekly and monthly paid employees. Powders was the largest unit with a combined 95 weekly and monthly paid employees, whilst CEA had a combined 23 weekly and monthly paid employees. In addition to these manufacturing units there were support functions on site which included engineering, Finances & Accountants, IT, Safety Health Environment & Quality (“SHEQ”) and Human Resources. Across Powders, Engineering, SHEQ and CEA there were employees who fall both in and out of the proposed bargaining unit. Dr Coleman referred to an Organisation Chart submitted by the Employer with its submissions. Dr Coleman said that the chart highlighted the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and how it would cut across the site and fragment the business.

27) The Employer stated that the proposed bargaining unit was at odds with the bonus structure which was designed to promote and reward team effort, and it would also be incompatible with its commitment to share reward equally across its workforce by giving a universal percentage rate pay rise every year. The Employer said in this practice, it does not follow the group guidance which advocates making each individual’s pay rise (or absence of pay rise) to some extent conditional on their personal performance. It was forced to allow for the possibility of such individual variation in pay rise in the wording of its Annual Salary Review announcements. It was a stand-alone company within the Sandvik Group, and as such it had consistently practised the uniform pay rise, and team wide bonus approach across its workforce for a number of years. Dr Coleman’s statement had also further explained that the company bonus plan and how Sandvik Osprey were doing against its objectives was a key topic of interest for employees and it was relevant to everyone in the organisation. All employees had the same objectives as a business and therefore the same bonus plan objectives, whether weekly or monthly paid employees. These objectives covered things like safety, sales and profit, customer service, HR initiatives, engineering performance and completion of strategic projects. This encouraged all employees to work together and it was a useful tool to ensure that managers and their teams worked collaboratively not just within their own area, but across the whole business. During those meetings employees were updated on the status of each objective versus the target and areas where the business should focus on to improve its results. Dr Coleman had referred to the Bonus Announcements from 2015 – 2018 copies of which were also provided with the Employer’s submissions. Dr Coleman explained that his predecessor had announced the 2019 bonus result during the all employee meetings, and he did not believe an announcement was placed on noticeboards that year due to a dispute over the level of the award. Its parent company announced a percentage of 72.81 in January but Sandvik Osprey, as a Company, had disputed this. Nonetheless and so as not to disadvantage employees, the bonuses were paid as usual in February. Once the dispute was resolved (the percentage was increased to 78.4) and employees were paid the additional amounts in March 2019.

28) Dr Coleman stated that in addition to all employees having the same bonus plan objectives, each year the annual salary increase was applied as an equal percentage increase for all employees. The total pot available for an annual salary increase was determined at Sandvik UK level and Sandvik Osprey did not have an opportunity to negotiate this. However, it was at Osprey’s discretion as to how the pot would be distributed amongst its employees. At some Sandvik Group sites this would be determined on an individual employee basis with some employees getting more and others less, but Sandvik Osprey choose to treat all employees equally and to apply a uniform percentage increase across all employees. Dr Colman stated that this had always been the case for all of his 11 years as an employee and it had been in effect for at least 15 years. Dr Coleman further stated that there was still a hierarchical pay structure for both weekly and monthly paid staff, which was essential to giving employees the opportunity to develop and new levels that they could reach within the organisation, however, annual salary increases were applied equally across all roles.

29) Dr Coleman stated that aside from the company performance bonus plan, all employees also received a fixed 2% Christmas bonus. Each year, the company reviewed its performance and, in the weeks leading up to Christmas, if the results had been good, a discretionary bonus was issued to all employees with every employee receiving the same fixed sum. This was typically in the form of a supermarket voucher or similar, that employees could use as they wished.

30) The Employer explained that the proposed bargaining unit was incompatible with structures for ensuring workforce health and safety, as well as workforce wellbeing. The Employer’s management structure currently included a number of consultative committees, such as the Health & Safety Committee, Energy Saving Committee, Safety Initiatives Group, Sports and Social Committee and a Health and Wellbeing committee. The Employer stated that its proposed bargaining unit would be consistent with the reach of those committees, whereas the union’s bargaining unit would not.

31) The Employer emphasised that the Union’s bargaining unit excluded a female union activist. The Employer explained that the Panel should be aware that the Health & Safety Committee and the Health and Wellbeing committees were chaired by a Unite member, who had been open about her union membership at the same time as being a proactive participant in the Employer’s existing structure of committees and employee involvement. Regrettably, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would exclude her, as she is monthly, not weekly paid. The Employer’s proposed bargaining unit would include her.

32) The Employer said that it was not opposing the Union’s proposed bargaining unit in order to be difficult. However, it believed it was misconceived as it did not exist. Furthermore, it would be harmful to the ethos of collective achievement and team working. The Employer reiterated its point in paragraph 19 above that if the bargaining unit could be expanded to include all staff on site, except the MD, it would not hesitate to recognise the union if it was persuaded/shown that there was majority support for the Union across the appropriate (employer’s) bargaining unit. It was the Employer’s view that the union advocates its’ chosen bargaining unit because it believes it has a greater likelihood of winning a ballot on recognition, on the basis of that smaller bargaining unit – even at the cost of excluding one of its own activists from that unit.

33) The Employer stated that it was a standalone company within a group and determined its own rates of pay, subject to a bracket determined on a group company basis at Sandvik UK level. There were other companies in the group within the UK which operated out of eight UK sites. There were no cross–company bargaining arrangements, so there were no existing national bargaining arrangements. At two of the other sites within the UK trade unions were recognised. Both locations recognised the unions on the basis of a full workforce bargaining group. The Employer stated that it believed this pointed in the direction of a workforce wide bargaining unit as it had suggested and as was the case at the other UK based sites.

34) The Employer stated that Union’s proposed bargaining unit would fragment the existing pay structure by fragmenting it along the four axes of role, product line, pay cycle and department. The Employer referred to the Organisation Chart as referred to by Dr Coleman in 26 above, which the Employer stated, illustrated the fragmentation vividly. If the Union’s bargaining unit was adopted, thus fracturing the structure on which the universal annual pay rise and bonus payment structure was based, then the union’s own bargaining unit would likely have to be fractured within itself, as the parent company criteria of sales performance, safety performance, quality of products made, complaint rate, timeliness of delivery, lead times, cost saving performance and individual performance would mean that those in the Powder group should be considered separately from those in the Controlled Expansion Alloys (‘CEA’) group, and production workers in each group should be considered separately from maintenance engineers, etc..

35) The Employer referred to Ms Dodds witness statement, which had also addressed the Diversity and Inclusion Policy at the Neath Site. The Employer stated that it had made significant efforts to achieve equal pay, giving it a minimal pay gap, which was far better than the national average. The Union’s proposed bargaining unit would introduce a disproportionately male dominated union represented bargaining group (the proportion of women in the union’s group being less than 4% compared to a company-wide presence of just under 15% women). The Employer also re-iterated its point at paragraph 31 above that the proposed bargaining unit excluded a woman union activist, who already chaired two of the company’s consultative committees, so could be expected to play a leading role if the bargaining unit was that proposed by the employer.

36) The Employer further stated that although the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were all based at one site, there were two main product lines at that site, in different parts of the site. The Union’s proposed bargaining unit spreads across the site but cuts across working teams in different parts of the site.

37) The Union’s proposed bargaining unit would preclude the company’s team approach to reward, unless the company were to treat the rest of its workforce as being bound by the terms negotiated through collective bargaining – which would mean that the employer’s proposed bargaining unit had been imposed based on a vote only of a small subset of that unit.

38) The Employer concluded its submissions by stating that the if the Panel were minded to allow the application to proceed with an alternative bargaining unit, then the Employer’s proposed bargaining unit of “All Sandvik Osprey Limited employees based at Red Jackets Works, Milland Road, Neath, SA11 1NJ, with the exception of the Managing Director” was the only appropriate bargaining unit, and should be the bargaining unit that the CAC decides on, pursuant to paragraph 19(3) of the Schedule.

4. The parties’ final comments

39) On 15 June 2020 the parties were given the opportunity of commenting on the submission lodged by the other party.

40) On 17 June 2020 the Employer submitted its closing statements, which were primarily based on the Union’s arguments regarding the interpretation of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Lidl Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee and another [2017] EWCA Civ 328 (‘Lidl’). The Employer did not agree with the parallels made by the Union in relation to this case, concluding that the implications of Lidl for the instant case were:

1. On the facts, Lidl does not preclude the union’s proposed bargaining unit being rejected on the ground that it is fragmented, because it is not a “sole unit”.

2. (Whether or not the factual proposition at (1) is accepted) all of the facts relied on in the employer’s primary submissions still fall to be considered under the more general heading of their compatibility with effective management, pursuant to Lidl para.38 and Schedule 1A 19B(2), and lead to a conclusion that the union’s proposed bargaining unit must be rejected because it is not compatible with effective management.

41) The Employer also provided supplementary witness statements from Ms Dodds and Dr Coleman. In response to the point raised by the Union in paragraph 9 above concerning the policy for recording attendance, Dr Coleman stated that again, the Union had submitted a difference in working conditions and a recognition by the company that the different units were a functional separation. Dr Coleman explained that during a LRQA audit for ISO45001 in November 2019, it was identified that the Company did not have a system in place for monitoring hours worked by monthly staff. This was discussed at an Osprey Central Action Tracker meeting, consisting of Osprey’s management team, on 27 January 2020 where open audit actions were reviewed. It was recorded that it was agreed in the meeting that the same clocking in system used for weekly paid employees would be expanded to cover all monthly paid employees. Before this change was implemented the majority of monthly paid staff started working from home due to coronavirus. This delayed the implementation of the clocking-in system and a new system with additional capability was being evaluated that would enable employees on-site and working from home to clock-in. It was expected that these trials would be completed in the next few weeks and if successful, all employees, whether weekly or monthly paid, would be required to clock-in by the end of July.

42) Furthermore, Ms Dodds disagreed with the Union’s assertion that those workers within its proposed bargaining unit were disciplined separately from the management structures within the undertaking. Ms Dodds stated that within the Engineering department there were weekly paid workshop supervisors who had responsibility for disciplining employees. They had been trained to carry out investigations and conduct disciplinary hearings and had the authority to issue formal warnings. There was an example of this taking place very recently where a weekly paid supervisor issued a formal first written warning in May of this year.

43) Ms Dodds also disagreed with the Union’s submission that the proposed bargaining unit was based mainly on the distinction between hourly rate weekly paid (production) employees in contrast to monthly paid salary staff. Ms Dodds stated that Union’s proposed bargaining unit would not include all weekly/hourly paid employees. There were two Engineering Supervisors (although they could be deemed to be Maintenance Engineers as they did maintenance work as well as supervise), a Materials Planner who works in the office, and two employees who worked in the warehouse/stores (Stores Controller, and Stores and General Hand who were not production workers as they did not carry out any production work, they managed the stores area), who would not be included within the bargaining unit.

44) In an email dated 23 June 2020 the Union confirmed that it had no comments regarding the Union’s submission regarding the bargaining unit.

5. Considerations

45) The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule to the Act, to decide whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. Paragraph 19B(1) and (2) states that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need. The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that he considers would be appropriate. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “[i]n exercising functions under this Schedule in any particular case the CAC must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying other provisions of this Schedule in the case concerned.” The Panel’s decision has been taken after a full and detailed consideration of the views of both parties as expressed in their written submissions and witness statements.

46) The Panel’s first responsibility is to decide, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. There is no requirement on the Panel to seek to identify a more appropriate bargaining unit if it finds that the union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. The Panel considers that in this case the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management and therefore appropriate. The Panel has not been persuaded by the arguments put forward by the Employer that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management of the business because it would cut across the site and fragment the business.

47) The proposed bargaining unit consists of a distinct and identifiable group of Production and Engineering workers, who are on an hourly rate, paid on a weekly basis. Those outside the Union’s proposed bargaining unit consisted mainly of non-manual workers, who are paid monthly, and are covered by different sick pay provisions. The workers inside the proposed bargaining unit share common terms and conditions of employment and characteristics. They work a set number of hours each week for which they receive a set basic weekly salary. In addition, they are also eligible for a shift allowance, receive enhanced pay for any overtime worked, and are covered by the same sick pay scheme. Their work is essentially production or activities closely related to production.

48) The Panel has considered the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, so far as they do not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management. The views of the Employer and the Union, as described earlier in this decision, have been fully considered. There are no existing national and local bargaining arrangements within the company. The bargaining unit does not give rise to fragmentation. It encompasses a discrete group of workers who all share the same terms and conditions and job characteristics. Those monthly paid staff outside the bargaining unit share sufficiently common terms and conditions and are in sufficient numbers to constitute a viable unit in their own right. All of the workers are employed at one location. The Panel is satisfied that its decision is consistent with the object set out in paragraph 171 of the Schedule.

6. Decision

49) The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that specified by the Union in its application, namely “All Hourly Paid Production Workers and Maintenance Engineers, employed at; Red Jackets Works, Milland Road, Neath, SA11 1NJ”.

Panel

Professor Kenneth Miller, Panel Chair

Mr Nick Caton

Mr Paul Noon OBE.

07 July 2020