APPENDIX 10
Memorandum by the Graphical Paper &
Media Union
THE GPMU's EXPERIENCE OF UNION AVOIDANCE
AND UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION
The GPMU supports the TUC submission made to
the Committee on Employment Regulation which, in line with the
terms of reference of the Committee, is much more general. This
submission is intended to complement that of the TUC by drawing
attention to specific concerns that the GPMU has in regard the
actions of some companies who are hostile to any idea of trade
union recognition.
Since June 2000 when the recognition procedure
introduced by the Employment Relations Act 1999 was brought into
force the GPMU has managed to achieve recognition in over 120
work places. The vast majority of these agreements have been reached
by voluntary means, or with the assistance of ACAS. In addition
the GPMU has a detailed knowledge of CAC procedures, which we
have had to use on a number of occasions. Arising from this involvement
we also have experiences of union avoidance and anti-union tactics
and campaigns used by employers in order to pressurise their workers
against joining a union, or securing union rights at work and
otherwise thwart legitimate union organising campaigns, where
workers have freely chosen to join our union and wish to negotiate
with their employers the right to union representation and collective
bargaining at the workplace.
We have seen at first hand how employers use
US styled union avoidance practices to deny workers a voice in
the workplace and how they have not only affected the GPMU as
a union but have been very detrimental to individuals who have
suffered stress, through both intimidation and loss of job just
for trying to uphold their rights to be represented by a trade
union.
The provisions of the current Employment Relations
Bill will address in part some of these issues; the clauses that
cover co-operation with the ballot; reasonable access; the outlawing
of inducements to workers not to attend access meetings; the outlawing
of coercion of workers to disclose how they voted; dismissing
or threatening to dismiss workers; and the use of undue influence.
However, it will be down to the Secretary of
State to outline what the penalties will be for breaking the new
law for these unfair practices.
The GPMU wants to put on record to the Trade
and Industry Committee its experience on the ground and therefore
stress the importance of making sure that the practices used by
the companies listed below do not go unchecked.
The GPMU also makes some further proposals that
should inhibit such practices in the future.
Many of the union avoidance techniques currently
being used in the UK emanate from the USA. Some of these tactics
are listed below:
TYPICAL ANTI-UNION
TACTICS EXPERIENCED
BY THE
GPMU ARE:
— The threat of closure of the plant/business
or part of it, if the union gets recognition including moving
work to another part of the country or to another country.
— Individual job loss threats.
— Actual sacking of trade union representatives
and activists.
— Pay and promotion inducements for
those who denounce the union either openly or working against
the union or simply by not joining.
— Holding a company ballot in advance
of an independently conducted ballot.
— Complete denial of any access to
a union including preventing leaflets being given to the employees.
— Holding anti-union meetings at the
workplace.
— One on one meetings, lead by supervisors
who are given the task of breaking union organisation in their
department, sometimes with their own employment under threat.
— Proposing changing to the bargaining
unit—either splitting it or combining with it with others
of different trades.
The second part of this document will provide
the Committee with examples of how these tactics have been used
against the GPMU. The final part will concentrate on measures,
further to those in the Employment Relations Bill currently going
through Parliament, that the GPMU believes should be taken to
prevent anti-trade union practices taking place.
EXAMPLES
Newspapers
The Daily Mail and Trust Group (Northcliffe
Newspapers) are a large national company with many sites across
the UK. The GPMU along with the NUJ have members in many of these
sites. They steadfastly use union avoidance and anti union techniques
to deny their employees union recognition and discourage union
membership.
As a result of GPMU activities through the involvement
of lay members at the place of their employment, the company have
initiated and carried out a systematic anti union campaign on
at site level orchestrated at group level.
There are a number of examples of anti-union
practice within Northcliffe Newspapers and some are set out below.
Stoke Sentinel
Although the company de-recognised the union
in the late 1980's many employees kept their union membership.
However, union members were put under continued pressure to withdraw
from union membership.
In February 2000 a leading GPMU lay representative
was dismissed, and another was made compulsory redundant, we believe
to "set an example" to other workers.
GPMU members were concerned about being overlooked
for promotion/better jobs and many felt that their jobs were at
risk if they continued to be members of the union.
When the GPMU applied to the CAC for union recognition
the company immediately set up a staff association. Our members
were then bombarded with anti-union material, and put under continual
individual pressures from the company to withdraw from union membership.
They were told that GPMU recognition would result
in the loss of contract work because customers would not place
contracts with a union recognised plant and that future investment
would not happen. Our members were also informed by the company
that if they voted for GPMU recognition, a decision would be taken
at group level to close the plant and move the work to one of
the other Daily Mail sites where there was no union involvement.
We did hold a ballot under the auspices of ACAS,
but because of the anti-union actions by the company we lost the
ballot.
The Printworks (Gloucester) Ltd
At the same time as the GPMU was making an application
to CAC for union recognition, the senior shop floor representative
who was canvassing union support within the workplace, was dismissed.
This representative subsequently won an employment tribunal award
for unfair dismissal on the grounds of trade union activity.
The MD and his management staff continually
intimidated the workforce in an attempt to pressure them into
not joining the union. Workers had to fill in questionnaires asking
if they were members of the union. Those that were union members
were then "invited" into the manager's office and told
that the company was prepared to make people redundant in order
to keep the union out.
When the case went before the CAC panel the
company produced 13 letters signed by employees, who were also
GPMU members, indicating that they did not support the GPMU claim
for recognition, and were resigning their union membership.
Five of these members subsequently wrote to
the GPMU explaining how they had been coerced by the company into
signing them. They were prepared for us to forward these letters
to the CAC, however, because the CAC would be obliged to copy
them to the company we decided not to.
The GPMU subsequently lost the ballot for union
recognition.
Swansea Evening Post
The GPMU approached the company to discuss voluntary
recognition and subsequently lodged a CAC claim. Our senior rep
with a flawless work record was dismissed.
Two women members said they were prepared to
take on the union representative role. However they were subjected
to continual intimidation and harassment and were forced to resign
their union positions.
Given the approach taken by the company and
the experiences at Stoke and Gloucester we felt that we had no
other option but to withdraw our CAC claim.
West Country Design & Print
In this case the company used promotion in an
attempt to thwart union organising.
When the GPMU submitted its CAC claim, the company
promoted and increased the salaries of certain GPMU members and
one of our key activists was offered promotion and transfer to
another site.
Before the Admissibility Hearing with the CAC
the company organised a petition against union recognition. They
held a meeting of the workforce and also had one-to-one meetings
with the workers, after which a number of GPMU members resigned
their union membership and signed the petition. Our activists
have also reported that one worker who was off sick was visited
at home so that they could sign the company petition.
The company also produced pro-forma letters
for the workers to sign. The company acknowledged that the letters
were drawn-up by the company and they provided both the letters
and the petition to the panel.
The panel gave us the benefit of the doubt and
declared the claim admissible. However we lost the Bargaining
Unit decision and as a result of that decision and the company's
actions we withdrew the claim.
Bristol Evening Post & Press
We have not at present submitted a recognition
claim to the CAC for Bristol, but we are in the process of mapping
the workplace and organising our campaign.
The company has already created a climate of
fear at the site, many of the workers that the union has had contact
with tell the same story, "the company will get rid of you
if you join the union".
The company has since closed one of the departments
and announced a review of all sections, which has led to fear
of job losses and resulted in a reduction in union activity within
the plant.
Most recently there has been a restructuring
programme within the print department leading to redundancies
and enhanced payments for our two main activists.
COMMERCIAL PRINTING
AND PACKAGING
Red Letter, Leeds
Red Letter is a direct mailing company owned
by the St Ives Group since 1997. Many, if not most, St Ives companies
have a long history of collective bargaining with the GPMU and
its predecessors.
Red Letter, together with all other companies
on the Bradford site was set up under the umbrella of Hunters
Armley, Leeds, as non-union following the 1993 wages dispute.
Many of the original managers were at the Bradford site as St
Ives employees.
During the campaign leading up to the access
period, the GPMU's only access to Red Letter employees was standing
outside a site gate used by some 400 employees from six different
companies.
Union members attempting to recruit inside advised
us that they experienced constant harassment and we have examples
of anti-union propaganda issued to members.
A campaign of intimidation was carried out,
mainly by supervisors, evidenced by two written and signed testimonies
from two of our members. The first denies upgrading specifically
on the basis of union membership; the second suggests job availability
to an employee's relative providing she drops her GPMU membership.
Our representative, whilst being shown a room set aside for "surgeries"
during the 20 day access period by the Human Resources Director
and plant manager, was stopped in the corridor and asked whether
"this was what she really wanted". On replying "yes"
she was told: "No XXX, is this really what you want".
Our rep would be prepared to make a statement to this affect.
Similarly, once the GPMU had been through the CAC process and
succeeded in winning the ballot, the company asked those in the
bargaining unit who didn't want union collective bargaining to
sign forms expressing that wish.
Consequently, clause 2 of the final agreement
identifying the bargaining unit carries the sentence: "Those
employees who have elected to negotiate their terms and conditions
of employment individually are not covered by the agreement".
Consequently, the concept of collective bargaining has been undermined.
Amazon.co.uk
In April 2000, the GPMU approached Amazon with
a view to gaining access to workers within the company. In June
2000 GPMU local officials met two HR managers who made it quite
clear that Amazon would not be allowing the GPMU access to the
workforce.
In August that year the GPMU started leafleting
Amazon workers from outside the company, which resulted in some
workers joining the GPMU. Membership took off in December that
year and reached a peak of about 100 by March 2001 when the GPMU
believed it was approaching the 50% level. Again we asked Amazon
management to meet us. Press interest in this was growing and
in the summer of 2001 the union met with Amazon management three
times where they told us they were now willing to cooperate in
a ballot of the workforce on union representation.
Meanwhile back at the distribution depot Amazon's
anti-union machinery (based on the practices used by the company
in the USA) was clicking into action. Besides pay rises and carefully
selected promotions, there were also dismissals. In May and August
our two most prominent union reps were sacked. The company then
improved some conditions and took the first steps towards setting
up a staff association.
The company then held its own ballot denying
GPMU any involvement or access to the workforce. Prior to the
ballot taking place the management held interviews with each individual
employee and meetings with groups of workers to ask why they needed
a union and to make sure they were aware of the company's views
on union membership. In addition the company distributed a sample
ballot paper to make it clear how employees should fill it in.
On the day before the ballot the workers were issued with T-shirts
bearing the words "Tell the GPMU yesterday's gone" and
"Vote NO".
Consequently the company won this ballot.
Europackaging UK Ltd.
Euro-packaging Ltd employs over 200 people at
its Birmingham Sparkbrook site, 175 are GPMU members. Urdu is
the first language of many of them and some speak only Urdu. The
GPMU sought to negotiate a voluntary recognition agreement but
the company categorically refused.
Then the company began to issue redundancies
notices, which were predominantly targeted at trade union activists.
Appeals hearings against dismissal were difficult as the company
refused translators other than company management.
The company then began to move machinery to
other sites and threatened a major redundancy program.
The refusal to negotiate a recognition agreement
with the GPMU and at the same time the bullying and intimidation
of the employees by the company resulted in a ballot for industrial
action. The ballot was carried with 131 votes in favor with one
vote against.
The company then threatened more redundancies
and the possible closure of the Sparkbrook site unless workers
returned to work and accepted all company `proposals' without
negotiation.
They also brought in temporary workers to cover
the work whilst the workforce was out on strike.
The combination of the resolve of the workforce
to remain solid in their industrial action and the supportive
actions of the GPMU Parliamentary Group at Westminster made the
company agree to negotiate a voluntary recognition agreement with
the GPMU.
John Brown/Derry Print
John Brown and Derry Print a commercial printers
in Nottingham purporting to be two separate companies operating
from the same premises. The employees were paid by the two different
companies, but they not only shared the same production area they
also shared the same machines.
The GPMU has a majority membership amongst the
production workers. However, if they were treated as two companies
separate companies they would have been below the 21 employee
threshold and therefore would have fallen outside of the statutory
recognition legislation. Also with the combined workforce we had
over 50% of the bargaining unit and therefore a right to automatic
recognition.
The companies continued to maintain that they
were completely separate organisations, however, the CAC concluded
that the companies were "associated".
This is a case where almost each stage of the
CAC procedure has been used, with the company failing to implement
CAC decisions by simply ignoring them. The CAC wrote to both the
company and the GPMU saying it would hold a hearing, but the company
did not attend. The CAC decided to specify a legally binding bargaining
method but the company did not respond. The GPMU has twice written
to the company but they have not replied.
The company has completely ignored the decision
of the CAC and the only course of action open now is an application
for contempt of court. This case has highlighted the loopholes
that are open to companies that wish to frustrate the legislation.
Opasco Ltd. Crawley
As soon as the GPMU started to recruit members
at this company the employer began to threaten redundancies and
allegedly threaten anyone who joined the union with violence.
When the CAC case was lodged, the employer distributed
a seven page anti-union document to the workforce. Although the
GPMU was granted access meetings, the employees were warned not
to go and were offered time off instead of attending the GPMU
access meeting.
During the postal ballot the employer attempted
to collect ballot papers from people's homes and delivered them
to the ballot box.
The GPMU subsequently lost the ballot.
Lonsdale Business Forms
Following an organising campaign within this
company GPMU membership reached over 60% of the relevant bargaining
unit. The union approached the company to meet to discuss recognition
and the company has refused. The company also begun their anti-union
activities, threatening closure of the business and immediately
prior to the ballot they wrote to all employees informing them
that if the vote for recognition of the GPMU was carried, that
Lonsdale would close the company.
Anson Packaging, Cambridgeshire.
Whilst the GPMU was still building membership
before lodging a CAC case, the company held its own ballot, giving
no access or opportunity for the GPMU to put its case. The company
unsurprisingly won the ballot and could have used the result in
evidence to the CAC had we continued.
Rocor, Cambridgeshire.
Similarly here the company held a ballot while
we were building membership but denied us any access. The company
won the ballot but the strength of our membership allowed us to
finally reach a voluntary agreement.
RITRAMA (UK) LTD
Ritrama (UK) Ltd is a manufacturer of `point
of sale' material for the retail industry. At the time of our
recognition campaign the Chairman was Dr Len Evans who started
the company. He subsequently sold it to a group based in Italy
with plants elsewhere in Europe. He remained in situ at the Manchester
plant and dealt with our claim for recognition throughout.
Whilst there is much `anecdotal' evidence of
bullying and intimidation in the workplace, with ourselves only
able to rebut accusations with our members whilst the non-members'
reasoning depended only on whether or not they took a leaflet
from us, the only concrete evidence that can be supplied is that
on the day of the ballot each employee received in the post a
letter signed by the Italians Head of the Group implying that
a vote for union recognition would necessitate a serious examination
of investment policy in the UK, specifically the purchase of a
£3 million machine.
Cromwell Press, Wiltshire.
This is a typical example of the problems we
encounter when trying to organise within companies.
Each time the GPMU leafleted the workers, the
manager would come out and shout at the organisers and try and
ensure no leaflets were taken by his staff. Several times he called
the police. He also warned staff that they would be sacked if
they joined the union. Our members within this company have advised
us that the level of fear in the workforce is at such a level
that it would be impossible to win a recognition ballot.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Access during a ballot period
The GPMU believes that access should not just
be allowed during the ballot period but should be extended to
allow the union access from the time that the application is accepted
by the CAC panel. At the present time the employers have unrivalled
access to the workforce to run Union avoidance and use unfair
labour practices and campaigns.
2. "Staff Associations"
At present an employer can reach a voluntary
agreement with a staff association without any test of support,
relating to any bargaining unit they chose, without any need to
justify why they have chosen that particular bargaining unit.
This would then block a recognition application by an independent
trade union for all parts of the company covered.
There is no provision for the agreement with
the non-independent union to cover pay, hours and holidays, as
there is under the statutory regulations for independent trade
unions. As a result the staff association agreement could merely
cover grievance and disciplinary issues.
Although there are provisions in the recognition
legislation to have staff associations de-recognised, in practice
these provisions are unusable. This is firstly because the employer
determines the bargaining unit with no provision for challenge
and because the application has to be made by an individual and
cannot be made by an independent trade union. Employees could
be risking their jobs if they attempted to pursue a claim of de-recognition.
In addition there is no right for the trade union to have access
to the employees during a de-recognition ballot.
To date these provisions have not been used
successfully.
3. Appropriate Bargaining Unit
A requirement of the bargaining unit is the
need for it to be "compatible with effective management".
The GPMU experience is that in determining the bargaining unit;
the employers attempt to widen the unit to include not only other
categories of workers but also different geographical sites. The
sole aim in this approach by companies is to dilute union membership
and support and is not related to effective management.
4. Criteria used for ordering a ballot
When the legislation was first being introduced,
the trade unions were led to understand that where it was demonstrated
that a union had 50%+ membership there would be no requirement
for a ballot. However following requests from the CBI additional
qualifying conditions were inserted into the legislation.
The GPMU believes that the government should
repeal these conditions and where a trade union has the necessary
50%+ this should be sufficient to grant recognition without a
ballot.
5. Periods for Negotiation: 20 days should
be reduced to 10
The schedule sets out periods of 20 days between
panel decisions. The purpose of this time allowance is to facilitate
the possibility of a voluntary agreement being reached either
at the next stage of the claim or to conclude a voluntary agreement
on recognition itself. While the GPMU acknowledges that the government
may have genuinely felt that employers would in the spirit of
the recognition legislation have used these time frames constructively,
the GPMU experience is different.
The practice has been that the employers in
many cases use these time frames and any extension that the CAC
are prepared to give, to undermine the trade union application,
to intimidate the workforce and enact anti-union activities. During
this period the trade union has no access to the workplace and
is unable to protect members against hostile actions of the employer.
As a result of our experiences the GPMU calls
on the government to limit the 20 day periods specified in the
legislation to 10 days with extensions to be given only when both
parties agree there is a genuine need for an extension. Our experience
shows that if all the stages of the CAC procedures are used by
a company to try and thwart a union recognition application the
total time taken can be in excess of six months.
6. Re-admissibility test
The GPMU is also concerned with time restraints
imposed by the CAC when a re-admissibility test is required.
We have been required during the course of seven
days to increase membership and/or run a petition to show increased
support, with no access to the workplace. However, at the same
time the employer with full access to the workforce has run an
anti-union campaign in order to undermine support and have the
application invalidated.
The GPMU does not consider either the time limit
imposed or the lack of access and the pressure under which the
employer put workers, to be acceptable.
7. The requirement of a 40% "yes"
vote
The GPMU believes that the 40% yes vote is an
unnecessary and unfair requirement that is not used elsewhere.
In all other elections known to the GPMU an abstention is treated
as a non-vote not as a no vote. It cannot be determined that those
who do not vote do not support the trade union claim.
8. Collective Bargaining Method
Although the legislation imposes a collective
bargaining procedure on the parties, the GPMU has found that some
employers are unwilling to bargain in good faith. Employers attempt
to undermine union recognition in a number of ways:
— by refusing to negotiate;
— attempt to enforce different pay
bands and conditions; and
— stating that the trade union can
only negotiate at one point during the year; and that for the
rest of the year the employers can change terms and conditions
including pay.
The GPMU has had experiences where there has
been a need to return to the CAC for advice following an employer's
refusal to negotiate or discuss any of the three statutory issues.
We believe these employers are biding their time, and will apply
for de-recognition as soon as the legislation allows.
In addition the GPMU believes that where statutory
recognition has been awarded that training and pensions should
be part of the statutory bargaining agreement.
9. Small businesses and trade union recognition
The GPMU supports the submission made to the
Committee by K D Ewing and Ann Hock "Employment Regulation,
Small Businesses and Trade Union Recognition: A Two Tier Workforce".
This provides evidence that trade union recognition law should
be extended to companies with fewer than 21 employees. The GPMU
is in full agreement and supports the arguments put forward in
this document.
| 
