Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 9 September 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1414(2024)

12 August 2024

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:

United Voice of the World (UVW)

and

D Brice & Company Ltd- T/as D B Services

1. Introduction

1)         United Voices of the World (UVW) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 15 July 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by D Brice & Company Ltd- T/as D B Services (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “the cleaners employed by DB Services at James Allen’s Girls’ School.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “James Allen’s Girls’ School 144 East Dulwich Grove, London, SE22 8TE.” The application was received by the CAC on 15 July 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 22 July 2023 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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham and Mr Nicholas Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 29 July 2024. The acceptance period was extended to 31 August 2024 in order to allow time for a membership check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving at a 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 made a request for recognition to the Employer on 25 June 2024 which stated: “we request that DB Services voluntarily recognise UVW Union for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect of the bargaining unit comprising the cleaners employed by DB Services at James Allen’s Girls’ School 144 East Dulwich Grove, London, SE22 8TE. This request is made under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.” The Union stated that the Employer responded on 4 July 2024 rejecting the Union’s request and stating, “we do not wish to voluntarily recognise this union.” Copies of e mails exchanged between the parties were attached to the 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 answered, “n/a.” 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 in excess of 21. The Union stated that there were 27 or 28 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 21 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 “UVW Union has 21 members in the bargaining unit. This constitutes 75% or 78% of the bargaining unit, and clear evidence of majority support for recognition. There is also no reason to believe and no evidence that the few remaining workers in the bargaining unit who are not yet members of UVW would not support recognition of UVW for collective bargaining.”

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was to ensure that the bargaining unit was compatible with effective management. The Union explained that all the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were cleaners who carried out identical or near identical roles and who received the same statutory minimum terms and conditions of employment, “with the exception of pay that is slightly higher.” The Union said that the Employer had already agreed to negotiate in respect of the bargaining unit and members of the bargaining unit had already joined together in a concerted industrial dispute for better terms, including a vote for industrial action. In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “No”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

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 15 July 2024 and that it would consent to its contact details being shared with Acas.

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

10)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 25 June 2024 and responded on 4 July 2024 refusing to recognise the Union. The Employer attached a copy of the e mail dated 4 July 2024.

11)       The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 8 July 2024.  The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, but that it did agree with the proposed bargaining unit.

12)       The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had responded to Acas stating that it did not recognise the union currently and would continue to negotiate with its employees separately. The Employer stated that it employed 27 workers at James Allen Girls School and that it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the union’s application. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13)       When asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it agreed with the estimate of membership but did not know whether the majority of workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition.

14)       The Employer replied “None” 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 and when asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. The membership and support check

15)       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 proposed 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 an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit. 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, dates of birth and job roles (where available). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 30 July 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.

16)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC from the Employer and the Union on 30 July 2024. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

17)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 28 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

18)       The list of members supplied by the Union contained 23 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 23, a membership level of 82.14%.

19)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 1 August 2024 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 7 August 2024.

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

20)       On 1 August 2024 an e mail was received from the Union stating: “We are satisfied that the check confirms that members of UVW constitute at least 10% of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit, and: a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would favour recognition of UVW union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.” No comments were received from the Employer.

7. Considerations

21)       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.

22)       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. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

23)       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.

24)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 15 - 19 above) showed that 82.14% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 16 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.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

25)       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.

26)       For the reasons given in paragraph 24 above, the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit stands at 82.14%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

27)       The Panel has therefore reached the conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, 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.

8. Decision

28)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 21 - 27 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Nicholas Childs.

12 August 2024