Form of Ballot Decision
Updated 16 January 2024
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2024
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-urtu-wincanton/form-of-ballot-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1370(2023)
17 November 2023
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT
The Parties:
URTU
and
Wincanton
1. Introduction
1) URTU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 28 September 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Wincanton (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “HGV Drivers and Shunters working for Wincanton Primark in Islip”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 28 September 2023. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 4 October 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 Tariq Sadiq, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr David Cadger and Mr Michael Clancy. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.
3) By a decision dated 25 October 2023 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. In an email dated 3 November 2023, both parties confirmed that they agreed to the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union in its application as “HGV Drivers and Shunters working for Wincanton Primark in Islip”.
2. Issues
4) On 8 November 2023, 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) of the Schedule that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. 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.
5) The notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 21 November 2023. The CAC was not notified by both the parties that they did not want the ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2). The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.
3. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot
6) By an email to the Case Manager dated 13 November the Employer stated, “Further to your email dated 8th November, you have confirmed that we will now be progressing to a ballot to understand if the majority in the proposed bargaining unit are in favour or recognition. You have requested for Wincanton to confirm our preference in relation to the ballot (postal or site ballot). I can confirm that the operation will be in peak activity managing extremely busy volumes. Therefore, it would be our preference, if possible, to conduct a postal ballot to try and minimise disruption during our busiest times. We understand that we need to accommodate reasonable time for URTU to have the opportunity to meet colleagues and discuss the benefits of recognition. We will work with URTU to ensure we can support and accommodate this around the needs of the operation”.
4. Union’s submissions on the form of ballot
7) By an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 1 February 2023 the Union stated “URTU suggest that a site ballot is then organised by the independent party appointed by the CAC to carry out the ballot. URTU further suggests that if any individuals who are not in attendance on the site on the date(s) of the site ballot, e.g., sickness or holiday leave, those individuals would receive a postal ballot”.
5. Considerations
8) When determining the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:
(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;
(b) costs and practicality;
(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.
9) The parties have put forward two different types of ballots for the Panel to consider. The Employer has argued for a postal ballot whereas the Union has submitted that the ballot should be a workplace ballot.
10) The Panel, having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, has decided that, on the grounds of cost and practicality, the appropriate form of ballot in the circumstances would be a postal ballot. It is the Panel’s view that it would not be cost effective to conduct a workplace ballot given the relatively small size of the determined bargaining unit, which currently stands at 30 workers.
6. Decision
11) The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.
12) The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.
Panel
Mr Tariq Sadiq, Panel Chair
Mr David Cadger
Mr Michael Clancy
17 November 2023