Voting arrangements “fall short”
[ch 6: page 32]The University of London was taken to the CAC in 2015 over the way negotiating representatives were elected, following a complaint by Ms C Morrissey (from an un-recognised union, IWGB). At the time there was already a trade union recognition and procedure agreement in place with UNISON and the lecturers’ union UCU covering information, consultation and negotiation.
In what was a complex case the university’s preference for supporting its existing relationship with the two recognised unions, treating information and consultation arrangements under the ICE regulations as an “extension to its collective bargaining machinery”, contributed to the outcome.
The university recognised a need to negotiate an agreement to inform and consult its employees but its arrangements to appoint or elect representatives, and for all employees to take part through a Yes/No vote on nominees identified by the employer and trade unions jointly. “had fallen short” of what was required, the CAC ruled.
The CAC was not satisfied that there was “a process by which all employees would be represented by one or more representatives”. The complaint was upheld and the university was required to arrange for election or appointment of negotiating representatives (regulation 14). The university appealed against the decision to the EAT but it was dismissed.
University of London 24 February 2015 IC/50/(2015) and 15 January 2016 UKEAT/0285/15/RN
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450963/Decision.pdf
www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/15_0285fhwwATRN.doc