![[Basket]](images/basket.png){kind=small}
Your order![[cover image]](images/issue/BK201611.jpg)
Undertaking challenged
[ch 2: page 13]The use of a definition based on economic activity can result in an undertaking that does not correspond to union expectations. In 2012 a Unite official acting on behalf of two employee representatives, Mr Holder and Mr Coombs, complained to the CAC that arrangements for a ballot to elect information and consultation representatives at GE Aviation were defective.
The union argued that three other companies within the GE Aviation division had not been included in the ballot: The “undertaking” should have covered all four companies that the union regarded as being part of the group (as reflected in the coverage of the GE Aviation European Works Council Agreement and the GE Aviation Human Resources Forum).
The company rejected that and other detailed union arguments about its level of integration, “joint approaches” and operational “commonalities”, and disputed the sequence of events. The sites it planned to ballot were part of a separate legal entity (GE Aviation Systems Limited “GEAS”) with its own unique registration number at Companies House.
Although the legislation allowed ICE arrangements to cover more than one undertaking (regulation 14(6)) this only applied through agreement and in this case no negotiated agreement had been reached; so the arrangements applied to a single undertaking (regulations 18 and 20). In a lengthy ruling the CAC panel concluded that GEAS was an appropriate undertaking on its own, and rejected the union complaint.
GE Aviation Systems Limited 18 September 2012 I&C/43(2012)