Challenging Recognition — The Legitimacy of Employer Behaviour

Abstract

This chapter turns to employer responses to recognition claims. As Chapter 1 described, employer behaviour defeated previous recognition legislation and the design of the 2000 statutory process aimed to ensure that this would not reoccur. Yet initial research (Ewing et al., 2003) suggested that employers had the potential to frustrate the purpose of the legislation, both within and outside the procedure. In the 2010 survey of the 20 unions that up to that point had used the procedure, the vast majority — 17 of 20 (85%) — considered that employer behaviour generally aimed to undermine union claims. This raises questions about the extent to which contesting recognition represents legitimate employer behaviour or whether its aim is to circumvent the rights to recognition provided by law, an aspect explored more fully in Chapter 6. Whilst CAC decisions document employer responses to claims once in the procedure, the seven case studies highlighted in this chapter offer a fuller picture of employer behaviour in the workplace. We draw upon both the CAC decisions and the case studies to identify employer strategies that preempt recognition claims, exploit legal technicalities, contest the union’s application by influencing CAC discretion and finally intervene in the workplace to undermine union support.

Neither did the employer consider that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition of the union. It had excellent industrial relations with its workforce and there was no desire for a collective bargaining mechanism. There was an employee forum which met quarterly and two of the forum representatives were employed within the proposed bargaining unit. The employer referred to an employee survey which demonstrated that 47 per cent of its workers across the company and deployed on London Overground were satisfied that their manager was able to provide them with clear information about decisions affecting their pay. (CAC Report in the case of RMT and John Laing Integrated Services TUR1/743/2011)