Posted By Jack Relying on TU appointed Safety Reps is problematic for many employers. ie too few on the ground to properly represent the workforce so the employer cannot comply with duty to consult. I too would try and avoid duplicating where the TUs properly represent all employees. But that works 2 ways, TUs shouldn't expect duplication (ie separate committees for TU reps and ROES) where they are not representing all employees. There are cases where 2 unions have refused to sit down together (usually after acrimonious disputes) at the same safety committee and some employers have caved in to demands for separate committees. Picky I know but TU reps are appointed by TUs, not necessarily elected

Posted By Adele Firth If you have not already made a move here are my thoughts as an HR specialist. 1. Why have the TU requested this? 2. How do the Employee Representative's feel about the TU request? 3. What was the purpose of having an Employee Representative Group? Looking at the bigger picture, a discussion needs to take place to encourage both groups to work together so that they can both benefit from this. Longer term thoughts: If the Employee Rep Group is not allowed then this could impact on their activities with the organisation in the future. their commitment, loyalty and purpose will be impacted. If the TU's get their way: how are you going to react in the future if they decide NOT to represent ALL employees? How are the PAYING members ofthe TU going to perceive the TU if this is to be allowed... after all they pay to be represented - the others don't! I think someone needs to look at this from a higher perspective and look at it from all angles. I would personally get the groups together and facilitate a way through it. A collaborated approach needs to be sought in my view. It might take time now to agree but in the longer term it will potentially financially benefit the organisation

Posted By Shane Johnston Jack, I know we agree, however I don't think we are agreeing on the same issue. Where ROES have been legally elected to cover an area not represented by TU, then everything is fine and we have no complaints. However, what happens if the TU then put a TU Rep in an area already coverd by a ROES? You now end up with TU and the ROES representing the same people. As a consequence the TU want to get rid of the ROES for the area. Shane.

Posted By Harry Cunningham Hello all I’m new to this thread and really impressed with the level of debate. One aspect that I think has been missed in terms of TU Reps and ROES, is the level of quality support that TU Reps have access to. Not only are TU reps able to make use of their own trade union materials and support, they can draw on other affiliated trade union resources. Indeed, the ability to access quality courses such as the TUC Stage 1 and 2 along with the Certificate programme (which takes them to Tech Sp level) gives TU Reps a considerable advantage over ROES in raising standards and performance on health and safety.

Posted By Kieran Dowling "A lot of non-Union staff don't like the idea of Unions making decisions for them". Well they could join and play a part in making those decisions! Then there'd be no need for ROES and separate consultations. On the other side of the coin, a lot of union members aren't too keen on non-union staff riding on the backs of union members and getting something for nothing. If pay rises and other benefits won by unions went only to union members, I wonder how quickly pragmatism would replace principle?

Posted By Shane Johnston Chris, Sounds like you had/have want I want ... TU and ROES working together. But why did your employer elect ROES in the first place ... did the TU say that they would not represent all employees? Shane