Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 31 May 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1310(2023)

20 April 2023

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:

URTU

and

Advanced Supply Chain Group

1. Introduction

1) United Road Transport Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 20 March 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Advanced Supply Chain Group (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Drivers”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Bradford, Halifax, Sheffield and Corby”. The application was received by the CAC on 20 March 2023 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 27 March 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 Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Kieran Grimshaw and Ms Stephanie Marston. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 3 April 2023. The acceptance period was extended to 24 April 2023 in order to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those 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 the Union had not stated the date on which it had sent a formal request letter to the Employer. The Union did however attach to its application a copy of its request letter, which was dated 3 November 2022.

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 stated “No”. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition the Employer had 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 100, and there were an estimated 60 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 42 were members of the Union. When asked whether it had evidence that the majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union referred to its level of union membership.

8) The Union when asked for its reasons for selecting its proposed bargaining unit stated that these were members of URTU. In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “No”. The Union stated “N/A” when asked if there was an 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 20 March 2023.

4. 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 3 November 2023. The Employer stated that it had responded by stating “The Company informed the Union that it was willing to discuss the application”.

11) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 20 March 2023. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, nor did it now agree with the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer stated, “The Company reserves its position in respect of the proposed bargaining unit and will make representations if the Union’s application is confirmed as valid and admissible”.

12) The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas be requested to assist. The Employer when asked to confirm details of contact with Acas stated “The Company requested that Acas conduct a confidential membership verification process. Acas was unwilling to do this without confirmation from the Company that it was prepared to enter into a recognition agreement with the Union in any event. The Company’s position is that it is unwilling to enter into a recognition agreement without assurance that this is the desired outcome of a majority of the members of the appropriate bargaining unit and that the Union is properly representative of the group”.

13) The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application. The Employer when asked the reason for any difference in the proposed bargaining unit, stated “The union’s proposed bargaining unit is Drivers employed at four depots, Bradford, Halifax, Sheffield, and Corby. The Company employs 90 employees in this category”.

14) When asked whether there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said “No”.

15) In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated “The Company has no information about whether its employees are fully paid-up members of the Union, and if so, how long they have been members, or indeed if any employees belong to any other trade union. The Company would welcome the opportunity to participate in a confidential membership verification exercise”.

16) When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition the Employer stated “There is no history of union recognition at our sites. The Company has not received a request for engagement with the Union directly from any of its employees. We engage with our staff via an elected driver forum, which is effective. Through this dialogue, improvements to pay and benefits for drivers have been agreed and are to be implemented next month. This has been well received and we do not believe that a majority of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit wish for the Union to be involved in determining their pay in future”.

17) Finally, the Employer answered “N/A” when asked whether a previous application had been made by the Union under the Schedule in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, and whether it received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. The membership and support check

18) To assist in 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 dates of birth). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 31 March 2023 from the Case Manager to both parties.

19) The information requested from the Union was received on 3 April 2023 and from the Employer on 4 April 2023. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

20) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 84 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 46 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 45, a membership level of 53.57%.

21) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 5 April 2023 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 12 April 2023.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

22) In an e-mail to the CAC, dated 5 April 2023, the Union stated, it had no issues with the figures presented.

23) In an e-mail to the CAC, dated 12 April 2023, the Employer stated, it had no comments to make or concerns on the comparison.

7. Considerations

24) 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 carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

25) 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.

8. Paragraph 36(1)(a)

26) 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. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraph 20 above) showed that 53.57% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. 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.

9. Paragraph 36(1)(b)

27) 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. For the reasons given in paragraph 20 above, the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 53.57%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case.

28) It is for this reason that the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, that 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.

10. Decision

29) For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr Kieran Grimshaw

Ms Stephanie Marston

20 April 2023