Recognition Decision
Updated 18 May 2021
© Crown copyright 2021
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-united-voices-of-the-world-service-to-the-aged-sage/recognition-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1194(2020)
17 May 2021
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED
The Parties:
United Voices of the World
and
Service to the Aged (Sage)
1. Introduction
1) United Voices of the World (‘the Union’) submitted an application, dated 10 August 2020 and received by the CAC on 11 August 2020, that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Service to the Aged (Sage) (‘the Employer’) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising the “Domestic staff and care assistants who work at Sage Nursing Home, 208 Golders Green Road, London, NW11 9AL.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 11 August 2020. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 18 August 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 Ms Laura Prince, Chair of the Panel, and, as Members, Miss Mary Canavan and Mr Paul Noon OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) By a decision dated 9 October 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. No agreement was reached on the appropriate bargaining unit and a virtual hearing to determine the issue was held on 11 January 2021. The Panel decided that the appropriate bargaining unit was the same as that proposed by the Union in its application.
4) On 2 February 2021, the Panel, satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) that a secret ballot would be held. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take. The notification period elapsed without the Union, or the Union and the Employer jointly, informing the CAC that a ballot was not required.
5) The parties did not agree on the type of ballot to be held; the Union favoured a postal ballot, the Employer a workplace ballot. In a decision dated 16 February 2021 the Panel informed the parties that, having considered the view of the parties and the factors specified in paragraph 25(5) of the Schedule, it had decided that a postal ballot was the most appropriate. The parties reached an agreement on the Union’s access during the balloting period and the Panel subsequently directed that Mi-Voice should be appointed as the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) to conduct the ballot.
2. The Ballot
6) The QIP was appointed on 9 April 2021 and the parties were notified accordingly. On 15 April 2021 the Union submitted a complaint to the CAC under paragraph 27B of the Schedule that the Employer had failed with its duty to refrain from using unfair practices under paragraph 27A. By a letter from the Case Manager dated 19 April 2021 the Union was invited to submit evidence in support of its complaint. The Union responded on 21 April 2021. On 21 April 2021 the Case Manager copied the Union’s comments and supporting evidence to the Employer and its comments were invited. On 23 April 2021 the Union informed the CAC that it wished to withdraw its complaint.
7) The postal ballot papers were dispatched on 26 April 2021 to be returned to the QIP by no later than noon on 10 May 2021.
8) The QIP reported to the CAC on 10 April 2021 that, out of 65 workers eligible to vote, forty four (44) ballot papers had been returned. Twenty three (23) workers, (52.27% of those voting) had voted to support the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer for the purposes of collective bargaining and twenty one (21) workers (47.73% of those voting) had voted to reject the proposal. The proportion of workers supporting the proposal as a percentage of the bargaining unit was 35.38%.
9) The CAC informed the Employer and the Union on 12 May 2021 of the result of the ballot in accordance with paragraph 29(2) of the Schedule.
3. Declaration that the Union is not entitled to be recognised
10) The ballot did not establish that at least 40% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit supported the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer for the purposes of conducting collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
11) In accordance with paragraph 29(4) of the Schedule, the CAC declares that the Union is not entitled to be recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
Panel
Ms Laura Prince, Panel Chair
Mr Paul Noon OBE
Miss Mary Canavan
17 May 2021