Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 6 June 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1468(2025)

06 June 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

CWU

and

Apple Retail UK Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         CWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 15 May 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Apple Retail UK Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “All permanent staff, excluding Managers” based at Apple Grand Arcade, Grand Arcade Shopping Centre, Cambridge, CB2 3AX. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 15 May 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 21 May 2025 which was copied to the Union.

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Robert Light and Ms Claire Sullivan.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

3)         The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore, should be accepted.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 29 May 2025.  The acceptance period was then extended to 12 June 2025 to allow time to conduct a membership check and for the parties to comment on the results before the Panel arrived at a decision.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 28 March 2025. The Employer responded on 10 April 2025 by stating it had considered the Unions letter and decided not to accept the request for it to recognise the Union. The Employer also confirmed it was willing to discuss the request with the Union.

6)         When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, “No”^{[footnote 1]}. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties. Both parties held a meeting on 2 May 2025, mediated by ACAS to discuss voluntary recognition. The Union proposed a membership check be conducted by ACAS, where a result of more than 20% would proceed to a ballot, which the Employer rejected.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 83  and 74 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 35 were Union members.

8)         Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.  When called upon to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated, “Union reps have spoken to a majority of the bargaining unit and there is widespread support for recognition from over half of the bargaining unit”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because “The proposed grades for inclusion make up the main workforce of the Grand Arcade Apple Store.”. The Union also confirmed that the proposed bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence, and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 15 May 2025.  

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 28 March 2025. In its response dated 10 April 2025 the Employer stated, “We responded to the Union by email, stating that we did not accept the Union’s request, but we were willing to discuss the request with it with the assistance of ACAS”.

12)       When asked to give the date that the Employer received a copy of the application form (and supporting documents, if any) from the Union. The Employer stated it received the application on 15 May 2025.

13)       The Employer confirmed it did not agree with the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer considered that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate bargaining unit and confirmed its objections by stating, “The Union’s proposed bargaining unit is “all permanent staff, excluding managers” at Apple’s Grand Arcade Store at Grand Arcade Shopping Centre, Cambridge, CB2 3X. We submit that this proposed bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management and would result in small, fragmented bargaining units. In order to be compatible with effective management, any bargaining unit must include fixed-term employees at our Grand Arcade Store. We routinely hire fixed-term employees at our Grand Arcade store to manage seasonal peaks in business. The vast majority of fixed-term staff go on to become permanent employees in store; more than three-quarters of fixed term-employees were then hired onto a permanent contract in 2024. Fixed-term and permanent employees share many common characteristics – they work interchangeably with permanent staff, insofar as they carry out the same duties, work at the same location and are under the same management and HR structures. Fixed- term employees are engaged on the same terms and conditions are permanent employees – for example, they have the same contractual working hours and holiday entitlements. We further submit that including fixed-term employees in the bargaining unit would be consistent with our existing bargaining arrangements. In particular, we recognise the GMB trade union for collective bargaining purposes in respect all permanent and fixed term employees below manager level at our Glasgow store”.

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “Yes”. The Employer stated “ACAS then facilitated a meeting between our and the Union’s representatives on 2 May 2025. We had agreed an agenda for the meeting with the Union in advance. During the meeting, the representatives of the Union focused only on one agenda item - namely the thresholds for union membership which would require a ballot to be held or alternatively would require us to recognise the Union without a ballot of the proposed bargaining unit and refused to discuss other agreed items. It is not agreed that the union specifically named a threshold of 20% for this purpose. We did not reject the Union’s proposals and remained willing to engage in further discussions regarding these and other issues. However, the meeting ended without further discussion. Later that day, the Union sent its application to the CAC shortly after its representatives ended the meeting. Later that day, the Union sent its application to the CAC shortly after its representatives ended the meeting.”

15)       The Employer stated that it employed a total of 4399 workers and that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. When asked the reasons for any difference, the Employer stated there was 75 workers (not including vacancies).

16)       The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “The Union has not provided any evidence in respect of its membership, and we therefore cannot meaningfully comment on the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit. We accordingly put the Union to strict proof that at least 10% of the members of the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union and request a confidential membership check be undertaken by the Case Manager”.

17)       When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer stated, “The Union has not provided any evidence in respect of the level of support for its recognition among workers in the proposed bargaining unit. We therefore cannot meaningfully comment on this matter at this stage. We accordingly put the Union to strict proof that a majority of the members of the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition and respectfully request to be afforded an opportunity to comment on its evidence. We further note that a number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit have indicated that they have been subjected to intimidation by colleagues in order to pressurise them to become or remain a member of the Union. Given our duty of care to our employees, we are investigating these concerns as a matter of urgency. We respectfully request an opportunity to provide further information about these concerns before the CAC might use membership of the Union as an indicator of support for its recognition. Additionally, a number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit have informed our store management that they have joined the Union for reasons other than support for recognition, including to access benefits such as representation at disciplinary and grievance hearings. We therefore also respectfully request an opportunity to produce evidence that a significant number of the Union’s members within the proposed bargaining unit may not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf”.

18)       Finally, the Employer when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, stated “Yes. The Union previously submitted an application for statutory recognition in respect of this same bargaining unit on 2 May 2025. The Union withdrew its application on 15 May 2025.”.   Asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer repeated by once again stating, “Yes. The Union previously submitted an application for statutory recognition in respect of this same bargaining unit on 2 May 2025. The Union withdrew its application on 15 May 2025”.

5. The check of membership and support

19)       To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit.  It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit including their full names and dates of birth. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 22 May 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

20)       The information requested was received by the CAC from the Union on 23 May 2025 and from the Employer on 27 May 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

21)       The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 78 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 39 names.  According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 39, a membership level of 50.00%.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 28 May 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

22)       In its response dated 29 May 2025, the Union stated “Achieving a 50% figure in the membership check proves our claim that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (as per the tests set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule). Achieving this density without the union being afforded the opportunity of accessing the workplace shows a vigour on behalf of the members of the bargaining unit; despite the employers attempts at portraying the union in a negative light during regular ‘captive audience’ briefings. Staff at the Cambridge store have joined the CWU specifically to achieve recognition and have the conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, and the membership check is evidence of such, and I very much hope the union’s application will be accepted”.

23)       The Employer in its response date 2 June 2025 stated, “We respectfully invite the Panel to draw its own inferences from the Report for the purposes of the admissibility tests in paragraph 36 of the Schedule. Our position as set out above is on the basis that the Panel will be making its decision based on the Report being the only evidence before it. Based on the Report, we anticipate that the Union’s application will be accepted and that there will be a ballot on recognition if, in future, the CAC determines that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, as the Report indicates that the Union does not have majority membership within such proposed bargaining unit. If the Union seeks to introduce new evidence for the Panel to make its decision relating to the tests under paragraph 36 or any other matter, we would wish to be able to comment on everything in detail at that stage, including the Report and the matters in our response form”.

7. Considerations

24)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied.  The Panel has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

25)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 12. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met. 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

26)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 21 above showed that 50.00% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

27)       Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

28)       The Panel notes from the membership check that half of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (50.00%) are members of the Union. The Membership Check has been carried out by the CAC and the Panel confirms that the application was validly made and is admissible. On the evidence before it, the Panel finds that it is likely that at least one non-member may support recognition of the Union. And on this basis that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

29)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair

Mr Robert Light

Ms Claire Sullivan

06 June 2025

---

1. The Union had submitted an application to the CAC for the same bargaining unit on 2 May 2025, this application was withdrawn by the Union on 15 May 2025. ↩