Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 18 October 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1337(2023)

4 October 2023

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

United Voice of the World (UVW)

and

Lee Baron Limited

1. Introduction

1)         United Voices of the World (UVW) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 8 June 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Lee Baron Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all the cleaners and concierge.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “West End Quays, Balmoral Building, 2 Praed Street, W2 1JD, Peninsula Building, 4 Praed Street, W2 1JD, Westcliffe, 1 South Wharf Road, W2 1JN.” The application was received by the CAC on 8 June 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 14 June 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 Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Roger Roberts, and Mr Nicholas Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         By a decision dated 12 July 2023 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Following this decision, the parties then reached agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. The agreed bargaining unit was described as “all cleaners, concierge and maintenance.”

2. Issues

4)         As the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

3. Membership and support check

5)         The Panel did not propose an independent check of the level of union membership within the agreed bargaining unit. The Parties clarified by e mail dated 26 September 2023 that there was a maintenance worker role which should be included in the agreed bargaining unit but only one worker carried out this role. The role was one which the Union said it was not aware of when it made the application. The membership check carried out on 3 July 2023 which resulted in a membership density of 94.44% would only marginally shift when factoring in the one additional maintenance worker. A further membership check would not have assisted the Panel when determining two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule,  namely whether 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 45(b)),

4. Comments on the validity tests

6)         In a letter dated 26 September 2023 the parties were invited to comment on the validity tests by 29 September 2023. Comments were not received from the Union. In an e mail dated 3 October 2023 the Employer did not seek to argue that the application should be rendered invalid.

5. Considerations

7)         The Panel is required to decide whether the Union’s application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered carefully the submissions of the parties and all the other evidence before it.

8)         The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45 of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(a)

9)         Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager on 3 July 2023 showed that 94.44% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 5 above, the Panel is satisfied that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(b)

10)       Paragraph 45(b) provides that the application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. On the basis of the evidence before it, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, 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 45(b) of the Schedule.

6. Decision 

11)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 7 - 10 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid, and that the CAC is proceeding with the application.

Panel

Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair

Mr Roger Roberts

Mr Nicholas Childs.

4 October 2023