There have been a couple of recent developments that will be of interest to members employed by Boots.
BPA refused a Certificate of Independence
At the time the PDAU applied to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) to be recognised by Boots for collective bargaining, the BPA decided to apply for a Certificate of Independence. Mr David Cockburn, the Certification Officer has recently refused to grant a certificate. He has concluded that the BPA is liable to interference tending towards domination or control by Boots.
The Certification Officer summarises the situation as:
“It is rather by stepping back from the detail of the relationship between the BPA and Boots and looking at the picture as a whole that there emerges, in my judgement, a clear image of a union that has over the years been drawn into a situation in which it is indeed liable to interference by Boots. I find that such vulnerability is evidenced, inter alia, by the BPA’s weak financial base, its dependence on the goodwill of Boots to continue the check off arrangement, its lack of any detailed contingency plans should Boots discontinue that arrangement, its promotion by Boots to new employees as well as its receipt of financial and other material support. Whether or not the BPA could survive the withdrawal of such support is not the issue. I must consider whether the threat of its withdrawal or serious curtailment places the Union in a position that it is liable to interference tending towards domination or control. For the above reasons, I find that the BPA is liable to such interference. In all the circumstances before me, I find that the BPA is not an independent trade union within the meaning of section 5 of the 1992 Act.”
The full decision can be found here
Boots Pharmacists Association issue apology to the PDAU
The PDAU became aware earlier this year of false and misleading statements being made by the BPA to pharmacists and pre registration graduates working in Boots. The PDAU wrote to the Chief Executive of BPA seeking an apology and a retraction of these statements. We sought an undertaking for the BPA not to repeat them again and for it to make a donation to the charity, Pharmacist Support. The BPA has agreed to these requests and the matter has now been concluded amicably. The BPA will be disseminating its apology to all Boots pharmacists over the coming months. A copy of the apology is below:
“In or around October 2012, the BPA made certain statements about the PDA. It has been brought to our attention that they were inaccurate. The statements were published on our website, in a letter issued by our CEO to all pharmacists dated October 2012, in a media statement issued by our CEO and in the magazine entitled “Counsellor” distributed in all Boots stores nationwide. The statement suggested that the PDA was primarily an insurance company and may have been interpreted to infer that the PDA’s objectives were less credible than the BPA’s. The BPA apologises to the PDA and PDAU for making these statements and to all Boots pharmacists for any confusion that may have caused. In fact, the PDA is a not for profit organization, and is not and never has been an insurance company. The PDAU is an independent trade union in accordance with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and is not funded by an insurance company. Both organizations are funded by membership subscriptions.”