The PDA Union has been made aware of a Boots statement with reference to our application for union recognition.
The PDA Union has been open about its application and flagged its intention to the company for well over a year; this news should be of no surprise to Boots or any pharmacist who has read our regular bulletins or Insight magazine articles.
Our application was heard on Tuesday 11th December before the Central Arbitration Committee with witness statements, cross examination and legal arguments. The panel has reserved its decision to allow time to weigh up the submissions and fully consider the evidence. A verdict is not expected until after Christmas and our intention was to wait for the decision until we commented further.
However in view of the email sent by Peter Bainbridge and Dave Vallance the morning after the hearing had concluded this leaves us with little option but to make some observations on the hearing and the content of the communication as we now note that the company continues to try to influence pharmacists that joining BPA is in their best interests.
The company also makes a point which we believe is intended to dampen PDA’s credibility when it says “….would involve it [PDAU] having the right to formally negotiate with us on the working conditions of you and all of our pharmacists, regardless of whether you are a PDA member or not.”
The PDAU would like to point out as a result of the agreement that Boots signed with BPA currently no pharmacist can negotiate their terms and conditions and that the PDAU is the only union that has applied to do so.
Boots has opposed our application on the grounds that its relationship with the BPA makes our application inadmissible.
The basis of our application to the CAC is as follows:
- 1) The way that BPA operates is not compatible with the aims and objectives of a trade union.
- 2) Any Agreement that exists between Boots and the BPA does not meet the statutory definition under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
- 3) Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guarantees the right of an individual through their union to collectively bargain with their employer on pay and conditions. Under the present arrangements pharmacists are denied this right.
In our view, the Agreement that is in existence between Boots and the BPA as of 1st March 2012 which Boots rushed to create and sign prior to meeting with the PDA on 2nd March 2012 is not a negotiation agreement but rather a consultative one where the company merely informs the BPA what it intends to do. This has been accepted by Boots and it was acknowledged in evidence that there was no dispute resolution process if agreement on issues could not be reached. Boots accepted that in the event of any dispute the company decided on the matter regardless of the views of the BPA.
The company are correct when it indicates that there are other steps and hurdles that need to be negotiated if our application is successful. We are confident that our application was very persuasive, backed up with expert legal arguments and is in the best interest of Boots pharmacists.
We will keep you in touch with developments and look forward to your continuing support in progressing our application should it be accepted.