Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 18 January 2021

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1202(2020)

18 January 2021

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

Wates Property Services Ltd

1. Introduction

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 17 November 2020 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Wates Living Space ^{[footnote 1]} (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All employees on the Barnsley Contract at Wates”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as The Old Gatehouse, Rockingham Business Park, Birdwell, Barnsley S70 5TW. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 18 November 2020. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 24 November 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 Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs Maureen Chambers and Mr Paul Morley. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Nigel Cookson.

3) By a decision dated 11 January 2021 the Panel accepted the Union’s application ^{[footnote 2]}. In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it agreed the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.

4) The next stage of the procedure required the Panel to decide whether a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. 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) states that “membership evidence” 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.

5) A check of the level of union membership within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was conducted by the Case Manager to assist the Panel to determine whether the Union’s application should be accepted. A report of the result of the check was issued to the Panel and the parties on 5 January 2021. This check showed that 75 (75%) of the 100 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union ^{[footnote 3]}. As stated in paragraph 3 above, in its response to the Union’s application the Employer said that it agreed the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.

6) In a letter to the parties dated 11 January 2021 the Case Manager said that the recently-conducted check of union membership had established that the Union had a majority of members within the bargaining unit. The letter invited the Employer to send to the Case Manager any submissions it wished to make on the qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 4 above by noon on 14 January 2021.

7) In an email to the Case Manager dated 14 January 2021 the Employer said that it did not wish to make any submissions that any of the qualifying conditions had been fulfilled and was content for the CAC to declare that the Union was recognised without a ballot.

2. Considerations

8) The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that the majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that the 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.

9) The membership check issued by the Case Manager on 5 January 2021 showed that 75% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Employer has not sought to argue for the purposes of this decision that the Union does not have majority membership nor has it indicated that any of the workers have left the bargaining unit, or have joined, since the membership check was conducted. In the absence of evidence to the contrary the Panel is satisfied that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

10) The Panel has considered carefully whether any of the qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled.

11) 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 not received any evidence that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations and is not satisfied that this condition is fulfilled.

12) 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. The Panel has no such evidence and the Panel has therefore concluded that this condition does not apply.

13) 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 has therefore concluded that this condition does not apply.

3. Declaration of recognition

14) The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that the 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 is fulfilled. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore 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 “All employees on the Barnsley Contract at Wates”.

Panel

Professor Gillian Morris, Panel Chair

Mrs Maureen Chambers

Mr Paul Morley

18 January 2021

1. In its application to the CAC the Union stated that the name of the Employer was Wates Living Space. In its written submissions provided for the purposes of a hearing to determine whether the application was inadmissible under paragraph 35 of the Schedule, the Employer stated that this name was incorrect. In answer to a question from the Panel Chair at the start of this hearing on 17 December 2020, the Union agreed that Wates Property Services Ltd was the correct name of the Employer and the parties agreed that this name should be substituted for Wates Living Space on the Union’s application: see paragraphs 17 and 29 of the Panel’s decision dated 22 December 2020. ↩

2. In its response to the Union’s application to the CAC the Employer submitted that the Union’s application was inadmissible under paragraph 35 of the Schedule. The Panel decided to treat the question of whether the application was inadmissible under paragraph 35 as a preliminary issue. In a decision dated 22 December 2020 the Panel decided that the Union’s application was not inadmissible under paragraph 35. ↩

3. See further the Panel’s decision of 11 January 2021, paragraphs 17-19. ↩