If you have difficulties viewing these documents click here

	Case Title:	B D Wedge Limited and Others v EEF West Midlands Association
	Decision No.	CO/1964/19
	Decision Date:	17th September 2008
	Surname:	B D Wedge Limited and Others
	Union Name:	EEF West Midlands Association
	Summary:	The Claimants’ alleged that the recent ballot of the members of the EEF West Midlands Association, which had approved the proposed amalgamation to form a single EEF together with other regional associations, was legally flawed. It was alleged that aspects of the ballot breached section 99(3A) and/or 100C(3)(a) of the 1992 Act. The Certification Officer dismissed the complaints.
	Case Title:	Lynch v UNIFI
	Decision No.	CO/1964/18
	Decision Date:	7th October 2004
	Surname:	Mrs P Lynch
	Union Name:	UNIFI
	Summary:	UNIFI proposed transfer of engagements to Amicus. Complaints made by a member of UNIFI that the union had, allegedly failed to ensure entitlement to vote in the ballot for the transfer of engagements of UNIFI to Amicus was accorded equally to all members of the union (section 100B of the 1992 Act); that the union had allegedly failed to ensure every person entitled to vote in the merger ballot was allowed to vote without interference or constraint (section 100C(3)(a) of the 1992 Act); that the union had allegedly failed to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that every person entitled to vote in the merger ballot was enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself (section 100C(3)(b) of the 1992 Act); that the union had allegedly failed to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that every person entitled to vote in the merger ballot had a voting paper sent to him at his home address or other address which he had requested the union in writing to treat as his post address (section 100C(4)(a) of the 1992 Act) and that the union had allegedly failed to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that every person entitled to vote in the merger ballot was given a convenient opportunity to vote by post (section 100C(4)(b) of the 1992 Act); The Certification dismissed all five complaints. See also Certification Officer's decision on a Register of Members complaint and Breach of Union Rule complaint.
	Case Title:	Manufacturing Science and Finance Union (MSF)proposed amalgamation with Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union (AEEU) complaint by Mr P Anderson
	Decision No.	CO/1964/17
	Decision Date:	12th November 2001
	Surname:	Mr P Anderson
	Union Name:	Manufacturing Science and Finance Union (MSF)
	Summary:	Complaint withdrawn, at the hearing of the complaint before the Certification Officer, on terms being agreed between Mr Anderson and MSF.
	Case Title:	Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA)proposed amalgamation with Public Services Tax and Commerce Union (PTC)
	Decision No.	CO/1964/16
	Decision Date:	19th December 1997
	Surname:
	Union Name:	Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA); Public Services Tax and Commerce Union (PTC); Public a
	Summary:	Complaints from members of the PTC that the union had, failed to notify members of the name of the scrutineer for the ballot on the prosed merger, had failed to notify members about the content of the scrutineer’s report and a compliant about the independence of the scrutineer. In dismissing the other two complaints the Certification Officer declared that the union had failed to notify members of the name of the scrutineer for the ballot before the scrutineer began to carry out his functions. The Certification Officer declined to issue an order in respect of the breach of section 100A(8) of the 1992 Act. Note: Decisions CO/1964/14 and CO/1964/16 were appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). The appeals were heard on18/19 February 1998. The EAT dismissed the appeal against decision CO/1964/14 and upheld the appeal against the Certification Officer’s decision CO/1964/16. It was the EAT’s view that the Certification Officer had erred in his decision in the matter of the notification to members of the content of the scrutineer’s report. The amalgamation of the CPSA and PTC to form Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) was duly registered by the Certification Officer on 10 March 1998. (Section 100A; section 100E)
	Case Title:	Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA)proposed amalgamation with Public Services Tax and Commerce Union (PTC)
	Decision No.	CO/1964/15
	Decision Date:	4th December 1997
	Surname:
	Union Name:	Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA); Public Services Tax and Commerce Union (PTC)
	Summary:	Complaint from a member of the CPSA that the union had failed to notify members of the name of the scrutineer for the ballot on the prosed merger. The Certification Officer declared that the union had failed to notify members of the name of the scrutineer for the ballot before the scrutineer began to carry out his functions. The Certification Officer declined to issue an order in respect of the breach of section 100A(8) of the 1992 Act. (Section 100A)
	Case Title:	Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA)proposed amalgamation with Public Services Tax and Commerce Union (PTC)
	Decision No.	CO/1964/14
	Decision Date:	25th November 1997
	Surname:
	Union Name:	Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA); Public Services Tax and Commerce Union (PTC)
	Summary:	A series of six complaints from 11 members of PTC and one from CPSA which alleged that the union’s had breached their rules. The Certification Officer held a preliminary hearing and in dismissing the complaints concluded that he did not have jurisdiction in the matters before him. (Section 103)
	Case Title:	National Union of Mineworkers (Yorkshire Area)proposed transfer of engagements to National Union of Mineworkers(NUM)
	Decision No.	CO/1964/13
	Decision Date:	19th May 1994
	Surname:
	Union Name:	National Union of Mineworkers (NUM); National Union of Mineworkers (Yorkshire Area)
	Summary:	Three complaints by a member of the NUM (Yorkshire Area), that non members had been allowed to vote in the ballot, that members were subject to interference in the exercise of their vote and that not all members were given the opportunity to vote. The first two of these complaints were dismissed. The Certification Officer ruled that “Limited Members” were members for the purpose of section 100B of the 1992 Act and ordered a fresh ballot. The Certification Officer’s decision was appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal where a judgement, on 30 January 1995, overturned the Certification Officer’s decision on a point of law. (Section 100B)
	Case Title:	British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) proposed transfer of engagements to Engineers and Managers Association (EMA)
	Decision No.	CO/1964/12
	Decision Date:	1st May 1994
	Surname:
	Union Name:	British Association of Colliery Management (BACM); Engineers and Managers Association (EMA)
	Summary:	Series of complaints from members of BACM complaining that the vote on the transfer had not been taken in a manner which satisfied section 100(1)(b) of the 1992 Act. Complaints alleged Act had been breached by a letter sent by the union’s President to members at the time of the vote. Complaints dismissed. President’s letter was circulated separately from the voting paper. Also letter did not constitute “interference or constraint” on members entitled to vote. (Section 99; section 100C)
	Case Title:	National and Local Government Officers Association
	Decision No.	CO/1964/11
	Decision Date:	5th May 1993
	Surname:
	Union Name:	National and Local Government Officers Association (NALGO)
	Summary:	Complaint of breach of section 100(1)(b) of the 1992 Act.  The complaint relates to balloting of members.  The Certification Officer dismissed the complaint.
	Case Title:	National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers (Staffordshire Area)
	Decision No.	CO/1964/09
	Decision Date:	22nd January 1991
	Surname:
	Union Name:	National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers (Staffordshire Area)
	Summary:	Complaint under Section 4 of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 to the effect that the vote on the resolution was not taken in accordance with the requirements of Section 1(2) of the Act.  The Certification Officer dismissed the complaint.
	Case Title:	Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians
	Decision No.	CO/1964/10
	Decision Date:	21st December 1990
	Surname:
	Union Name:	Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians
	Summary:	Complaint under Section 4 (1)(a) of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 to the effect that the vote on the resolution was not taken in accordance with the requirements of Section 1(2)(b) of the Act.  The Certification Officer dismissed the complaint.
	Case Title:	Richards v The National Union of Mineworkers (South Derbyshire Area)
	Decision No.	CO/1964/08
	Decision Date:	6th December 1985
	Surname:	K Richards
	Union Name:	The National Union of Mineworkers (South Derbyshire Area)
	Summary:	Complaints bought under Section 4 of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 regarding the voting on the resolution to approve an amalgamation between the National Union of Mineworkers Nottingham Area, South Derbyshire Area and the Colliery Trades and Allied Workers Association.  The complaints were dismissed.
	Case Title:	Gormley v The Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, shipwrights, Blacksmiths and Structual Workers
	Decision No.	CO/1964/07
	Decision Date:	1st December 1982
	Surname:	T Gormley
	Union Name:	The Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, Shipwrights, Blacksmiths and Structual Workers
	Summary:	Complaint under Section 4(1) of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 in that the balloting of members on a resolution to approve the merger by amalgamation between the Union and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers breached the Union's rules.  The complaint was dismissed.
	Case Title:	Young v The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers
	Decision No.	CO/1964/05
	Decision Date:	30th April 1982
	Surname:	D Young
	Union Name:	The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers
	Summary:	Complaint regarding the balloting of members under Section 4(1) of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 was made about the merger of the Union with the Transport and General Workers Union by Instrument of Transfer.  The complaint was dismissed.
	Case Title:	Millar v The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers
	Decision No.	CO/1964/06
	Decision Date:	30th April 1982
	Surname:	A D Millar
	Union Name:	The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers
	Summary:	Alleged breach of Section 1(2)(b) of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 in that the voting on the resolution of a merger by Instrument of Transfer of the Union to the Transport and General Workers Union breached the Act.  The complaint was dismissed.
	Case Title:	Ammonds v Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers, Engravers and Process-Workers (SLADE)
	Decision No.	CO/1964/04
	Decision Date:	26th March 1982
	Surname:	Mr C C Ammonds
	Union Name:	Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers, Engravers and Process-Workers (SLADE)
	Summary:	Two complaints under Section 4(1) of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 were made about the amalgamation of the Union and National Graphical Association.  The first that members not entitled to vote voted on the resolution; the second that the votes recorded did not have the effect of passing the resolution.  Both complaints were dismissed.
	Case Title:	Clare v The Eagle Star Staff Association
	Decision No.	CO/1964/03
	Decision Date:	21st October 1981
	Surname:	G Clare
	Union Name:	The Eagle Star Staff Association
	Summary:	Five complaints were made under Section 4(1)(a) of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 in that the manner in which the vote on the resolution was taken regarding the merger by Instrument of Transfer of the Union to the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union did not satisfy the conditions in Section 1(2)(b) of the Act.  The Certification Officer dismissed all five complaints.
	Case Title:	McLaren & Ognall v The Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians
	Decision No.	CO/1964/02
	Decision Date:	30th March 1979
	Surname:	I McLaren & S A Ognall
	Union Name:	The Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians
	Summary:	Complaints were received under Section 4 of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 about the amalgamation of the Union and the Association of Broadcasting and Allied Staffs.  The complaints were that members of the Union who were in arrears with their subscription voted on the resolution, contrary to the union's rules.  The Certification Officer dismissed the complaints.
	Case Title:	Latimer v The Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians
	Decision No.	CO/1964/01
	Decision Date:	28th February 1979
	Surname:	I Latimer
	Union Name:	The Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians
	Summary:	Three complaints under Section 4(1)(b) of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc) Act 1964 were made about the amalgamation of the Union and the Association of Broadcasting and Allied Staffs.  The first that the Union failed to make available three statements arranged by the General Council in the time allowed; the second that financial statement prepared by the Union failed to satify the requirements of the General Council; the third that the inclusion of the statement strongly supporting amalgamation made on behalf of the joint committee breached the Act.  The Certification Officer made an order to re-run the ballot in relation to complaint 1 and dismissed complaints 2 and 3.

back to the top