National Union of Journalists, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee & Anor

A voluntary recognition agreement between an employer and an independent trade union may prevent a rival union’s statutory recognition application under paragraph 35 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, even where the recognised union lacks substantial workforce support. Employee consent or majority support is not required for recognition. An agreement is ordinarily in force when signed, although it may later be abandoned or fall into disuse. The phrase on behalf of any workers refers to their benefit, not their consent, and does not require representation of a majority. Article 11 does not impose a positive obligation on the State to provide a mechanism compelling an employer to recognise a particular union.

The claimant union sought statutory recognition for journalists employed in the Sports Division of Mirror Group Newspapers. Before the application, the employer had entered into a voluntary recognition agreement with a rival union which had little or no membership in the bargaining unit.

The Central Arbitration Committee held that the rival agreement was a collective agreement already in force and that the application was therefore inadmissible under paragraph 35 of Schedule A1. It rejected arguments based on employee support, implementation of the agreement and article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision.

1. Application dismissed. The Central Arbitration Committee had correctly held that the claimant’s application was inadmissible. Its decision was neither erroneous in law nor perverse.
2. Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, applied by paragraph 3(6) of Schedule A1, defines recognition as recognition by an employer for collective bargaining purposes. The statutory definitions contemplate an agreement between the employer and the union. They do not require the consent, authority or support of the workers concerned.
3. The agreement between the employer and the rival union was plainly a recognition agreement satisfying section 178. Paragraph 35 does not require the agreement to have been implemented through completed negotiations. A written agreement is ordinarily binding from signature. It may be abandoned or fall into disuse, but the evidence showed neither event here.
4. The words on behalf of any workers in paragraph 35 do not require majority or substantial support. They mean for the benefit of workers within the relevant bargaining unit. A union may therefore be voluntarily recognised even if it has only one member, or no significant support, within that unit.
5. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not oblige public authorities to provide a legal mechanism requiring an employer to recognise a particular trade union. The approach in Wilson and National Union of Journalists v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 568 supported that conclusion. The statutory scheme did not worsen the position of unions or their members and was compatible with article 11.
6. The apparent legislative lacuna, whereby a representative union could be excluded by an agreement with an unrepresentative union, was a matter for Parliament and the industrial process. The claim was dismissed, with costs payable by the claimant. Permission to appeal was refused.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The claim challenging the Central Arbitration Committee’s decision was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused.