Ad description
A press ad for a job vacancy with the NASUWT trade union included the text "The largest teachers' union in the UK".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because they understood the National Union of Teachers (NUT) had a larger membership than the NASUWT.
Response
The NASUWT believed the claim was completely accurate and that it would be partly understood as a reference to the geographical reach of the NASUWT within the UK. They said that the NUT did not organise in Scotland and Northern Ireland and accordingly it did not cover half of the UK, whereas the NASUWT organised in all countries of the UK. They believed on a geographical basis alone, the NASUWT had a claim to be the largest teachers' union in the UK.
They explained that the return to the Certification Officer (CO) was a statutory requirement governed by Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and was made on a standard form called the AR21. They provided copies of the most recent AR21 forms for the NUT and the NASUWT, which they believed demonstrated that, unlike the NASUWT, the NUT did not organise in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
They also believed that the reference to "teachers'" in the ad would be understood by consumers as a reference to 'practising' teachers only (those who were currently practising teachers) and that because the NASUWT had only practising teachers as members and those numbers exceeded those of the NUT, this therefore further supported the "largest" claim.
They raised concerns about the two existing methods of self-reporting member numbers (the TUC and the CO), which had been referenced by themselves and the complainant, and explained that the self-reported membership numbers made by the NUT to both the TUC and the CO included individuals who were not practising teachers. In order to demonstrate that the composition of teacher's union membership differed, they provided a copy of the NUT Rules which included the rules of membership, which they believed demonstrated not all NUT members affiliated to the TUC were practising teachers because membership included student and retired teachers. They believed this therefore supported their concerns that TUC returns were not suitable for making like-for-like comparisons of practising teachers.
They said that, as with the returns to the TUC, the teachers' unions defined members for the CO returns in different ways. They said that the NUT allowed those who were not currently teaching (or teaching in the UK) to remain members. They believed that because of the significant differences in reporting these figures, it was therefore not possible to rely on the returns to the CO as a basis of accurately comparing the true numbers of practising teachers.
They believed however that the Electoral Reform Services (ERS), represented an accurate method in which the number of practising teacher members could be compared. They provided what they understood to be the most recent ballot figures for industrial action which they believed to be the only figures which had a proper audit trail (because they had been verified by the ERS) and were therefore independently approved. They said the ballots demonstrated that, in 2011, when the NUT requested its first ERS ballot of members in England and Wales, it had reported that 218,370 members were balloted. They said that in October 2011, when the NASUWT members were balloted in England and Wales, the total members balloted was 228,767. They said a further 11,469 members balloted in Northern Ireland. They said this was a total of 240,226 members balloted in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and that this number did not include members of the Scottish TUC, who would increase the overall membership number. They provided a 2011 press release from the NUT which they believed demonstrated a total balloted membership of 218,370 along with an email confirmation from ERS regarding the 240,226 balloted members of the NASUWT.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that, without qualification, consumers would understand the claim "The largest teachers' union in the UK" to mean that the NASUWT, as a teacher's union, had the highest number of members in the UK compared with any other UK teachers' union.
The evidence provided regarding TUC affiliation of the NUT members demonstrated that it affiliated both practising and non-practising teachers and noted that, without a specific breakdown of membership categories, this demonstrated that these reporting methods alone could not be used to make a like-for-like comparison of practising teachers between the NUT and the NASUWT. We equally understood the returns to the CO (for the NUT) included practising and non-practising teachers, again noting these figures did not allow for a like-for-like comparison of practising teacher numbers in those unions.
We understood that only practising teachers were balloted in the 2011 (national ballots) for both unions, and therefore understood the NASUWT believed ERS figures were likely to be the most fair and accurate comparable evidence of practising teachers within the unions. However, the evidence for the NUT members who were balloted detailed some exclusions, including supply teachers, and referred to the fact that two constituencies were balloted, without providing information to demonstrate those constituencies consisted of all practising teachers within the NUT without exception . Furthermore, we were concerned that evidence (a press release from the NUT and an email from the ERS to the NASUWT), did not constitute sufficiently robust evidence to demonstrate the quoted figures were an accurate representation of the ERS verified number of balloted practising teacher members within each union or that those balloted members represented all practising teachers within each union. Furthermore, we noted the referenced ballots occurred in 2011 but that further evidence was not submitted to demonstrate the referenced figures in those ballots were the same at the time the ad appeared in March 2014. We therefore considered that the submitted evidence did not demonstrate that the NASUWT had more practising teacher members than that of the NUT.
.
Although we understood the NASUWT believed the claim would be understood as a reference to practising teachers and that the submitted evidence was intended to substantiate that claim, we considered that the comparative claim would be understood as a reference to the total number of members within the teachers' unions, regardless of their current teacher status. Notwithstanding that the submitted evidence did not demonstrate an accurate comparison of practising teachers in each union, because evidence was not submitted to demonstrate that the NASUWT had more members than the NUT, we considered that this claim had not been substantiated and concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad should not appear again in its current form. We told NASUWT to take care when making comparative claims in future ads and to ensure it held evidence to support the claim "The largest teachers union in the UK".
