UNITE Kestrel Foods Ltd.
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 2018 |
| Court | Industrial Court (UK) |
| Judgement Number | IC73/18 |
1
Case Ref No: IC-73/2018
THE INDUSTRIAL COURT
THE TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
ORDER 1995 (AS INSERTED BY ARTICLE 3 OF THE EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1999)
SCHEDULE 1A – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION
The Parties:
Unite the Union
And
Kestrel Foods Ltd
Background
1. The Industrial Court (the Court) received an application on 13th March 2018 for
recognition at Kestrel Foods Ltd, Unit 8, Carn Drive, Carn Industrial Estate, Portadown,
BT63 5WJ. This address is the location of the proposed bargaining unit. The bargaining unit
was described as “Production Operatives” working for Kestrel Foods Ltd at their Portadown
site: Unit 8, Carn Drive, Carn Industrial Estate, Portadown, Co. Armagh, BT63 5WJ.
2. A Panel was established and was made up of Barry Fitzpatrick, Acting Chairman of the
Industrial Court and Robin Bell and Patrick Masterson as Panel Members. The Case Manager
appointed was Declan McGrady. The application was copied to the Employer, the Employer
Response Form was issued to the Employer on 14th March 2018 and was returned from the
Employer on 23rd March 2018.
Panel Meeting of 27th March 2018
3. A Panel Meeting to review the application took place on 27th March 2018. The Panel
confirmed with the Case Manager that a range of admissibility and validity tests, set out in
the Schedule, had been satisfied. The Panel noted that the description of the proposed
bargaining unit in the request for recognition included the location of the bargaining unit but
that this inclusion did not alter the description of the workers in the unit. The outstanding
issues concerned the admissibility tests set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule, which
provides:-
“(1) An application under paragraph 11 or 12 is not admissible unless the
Court decides that—
(a) members of the union (or unions) constitute at least 10 per cent of the
workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit, and
2
(b) a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would
be likely to favour recognition of the union (or unions) as entitled to conduct
collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.”
In consequence, the Case Manager was invited to collate further information from the Parties.
Information provided by the Parties
On 28th March 2018, the Union provided a membership list containing 26 names with
membership numbers and details of dues paid and date last paid, a list of names, addresses
and understood job titles for those within the proposed bargaining unit. On Thursday 5th April
2018, the Employer provided a response to the Court with a list of 59 workers including
names, addresses and job titles.
4. A Case Manager’s Report issued on 10th April 2018 and comments were requested from
the Parties.
5. The following table was included in the Case Manager’s Report.
6. The Union responded to the Case Manager’s Report on 13th April 2018 stating – “At this
point in time we have nothing further to add”. The Employer response, also received on 13th
April 2018, made reference to an Employee Forum, low staff turnover, the company’s pay
structure and an overview of employee practices. Evidence was also provided by the
Employer in the form of Employee Forum Minutes.
7. The Panel met again on 16th April 2018. The Panel considered the Case Manager’s
Report. It considered the ‘membership/’majority likely to’ tests in paragraph 36 of the
Schedule. The Panel noted that the Union had not provided a petition or other evidence of
Number of workers on the list supplied by the Employer
59
Number of Union Members on list supplied by the Union
26
Number of Union Members with dues paid on list provided
26
Number of Union members whose names match those provided by
the Employer
26
Number of Union members whose names match but addresses do
not
0
Number of Union Members appearing on the Employer list with
no match issues
26 (44.07%)
No petition of support was provided by the Union
-
Number of workers who would be likely to favour recognition of
the Union
26 (44.07%)
To continue reading
Request your trial