Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 19 October 2021

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1235(2021)

18 October 2021

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

The London Library

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 6 October 2021 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by The London Library (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All staff employed by the employers excluding the five members of the executive team”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as 14 St James’s Square, St James’s, London SW1Y 4LG. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 6 October 2021. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 13 October 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 Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Tariq Sadiq, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Martin Kirke and Mr Steve Gillan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

2. Issues

3) 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. The Union’s application

4) In its application the Union said that it had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 19 July 2021 but, despite several meetings, the Employer had failed to agree to recognise the Union. A copy of the Union’s email of 19 July 2021 was enclosed with the application.

5) According to the Union, there was a total of 71 workers employed by the Employer and that the Employer agreed with this figure. Of these 71 workers, 66 fell within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 25 members within the proposed bargaining unit. Asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union said that 37 staff from the bargaining unit had signed a petition in support of the Employer recognising the Union for bargaining purposes.

6) When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that it wished to be inclusive as possible and therefore requested recognition for all staff except the five people in the executive team as these would be the people that the Union would negotiate with on behalf of members. The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

7) The Union confirmed that the Employer had not, following receipt of the request for recognition, proposed that Acas be requested to assist. The Union also confirmed that it had a current certificate of independence.

8) Finally, the Union said there had not been a previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and there was no existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s application

9) The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s formal request for recognition on 19 July 2021. When asked what its response was, the Employer stated:

“Our response was in writing, by email dated 30 July 2021 (copy attached). In that response, we pointed out that the written request did not appear to identify the bargaining unit and that we did not, therefore regard the notice as effective…”.

10) When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form directly from the Union, the Employer stated this was 6 October 2021 by email. The Employer confirmed that it had not agreed the bargaining unit prior to having received a copy of the completed application form as the Union’s written request did not identify any bargaining unit. It stated that in relation to the admissibility criteria, the Union’s written request of 19 July 2021 did not comply with the requirements of Schedule A1 as it failed to identify the proposed bargaining unit, and the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, which was the subject of its application, was not the same as that which was identified in its written request because no unit was identified nor was it the same as in any communication with the Employer prior to its application. When asked did it agree the bargaining unit, the Employer answered “No”.

11) The Employer stated that it employed 70 workers. It did not agree with the Union’s figure as to the number of workers in the bargaining unit, explaining that, excluding the executive team, there would be 65 rather than the figure given by the Union. When asked to give reasons for disagreeing with the Union’s estimate of its membership in the bargaining unit, the Employer stated that it understood that there may have been changes in the number of members within the proposed bargaining unit which had reduced the number and percentage of active members but it accepted that the 10% threshold test was still met. When asked to give reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition, the Employer stated that it had received feedback from a number of workers who were Union members who had expressed their commitment to ongoing membership of the Union but who were not supportive of recognition for the purpose of collective bargaining. The Employer also believed Union membership appeared to be decreasing and that the absence of growth in membership suggested a lack of support for recognition amongst non-members. As for the petition referred to by the Union, the Employer stated that it was unable to comment on the veracity of the evidence of specific support for recognition as the Employer did not know, for example, whether a signatory to the petition was still employed or if they were, how long it was since they indicated their support for whatever question was posed by the petition. The Employer was also concerned that the signatories might not have been fully informed of the implications of the petition.

12) The Employer confirmed that there was no recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. When asked whether, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”.

13) Finally, 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 answered N/A.

5. Considerations

14) In deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must determine whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied.

15) Paragraph 1 of Schedule A1 states that a trade union seeking recognition to be entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers may make a request in accordance with this Part (Part I) of the Schedule. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule states that paragraphs 5 to 9 apply to the request. Paragraph 8 states that a request will not be valid unless it is in writing, identifies the union and the bargaining unit, and states that it is made under Schedule A1.

16) Paragraph 15(2)(a) requires the CAC to decide whether the request for recognition to which the application relates is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9. The Panel considers that the request for recognition which the Union made to the Employer did not comply with the requirements of paragraphs 5 to 9, in that whilst it identified the Union and stated that the request was being made under the Schedule, it did not identify the bargaining unit. For this reason the Panel finds that it is not a valid request.

6. Decision

17) For the reasons given above, the Panel concludes that the request is not a valid request for recognition in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Schedule and so the application is not accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Tariq Sadiq, Panel Chair

Mr Martin Kirke

Mr Steve Gillan

18 October 2021