Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 1 June 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1468(2025)

1 June 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED

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)         By a decision dated 6 June 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. As no agreement was reached the parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. On 26 June 2025 the Panel determined the bargaining unit as “All grades 1 to 5, (including permanent and flexible workers) excluding managers, based at Apple Grand Arcade, Grand Arcade Shopping Centre, Cambridge, CB2 3AX”.

4)         On 19 September 2025, the Panel, satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were not members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot. 

5)         On 3 November 2025 the Union sent an email to the CAC stating that the Employer was refusing to meet the standards of the Code and that it wished the CAC to adjudicate on the matter of access. On 28 November 2025, the Panel Chair held an informal access meeting and presented two options: either the Panel would adjudicate the matter without initiating the ballot procedure, with the outcome dependent on the parties’ consent, or the CAC would begin the statutory ballot process, allowing the Union to raise a complaint. The parties opted for the first option. Before the hearing, the Panel Chair circulated a list of agreed and disputed matters, which the parties confirmed. At the hearing, the issues were further narrowed, and the Employer’s submissions were supplemented by oral evidence. The Panel considered all evidence, the relevant Code of Practice, and the Employer’s duty to provide reasonable access under paragraph 26(3) of the Schedule and made an order on access.

3. The Ballot

6)         The CAC was then required to hold a secret ballot as neither the Union nor the Union and the Employer had notified the CAC that they did not want a ballot to be arranged. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 25(9) of the Schedule, the parties were informed of the Ballot arrangements in which the workers in the bargaining unit were to be asked whether they wanted the Union to be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining on their behalf. Popularis was appointed as QIP on 18 February 2026 to conduct the ballot and the parties were notified accordingly.

7)         On 10 March 2026 the Union submitted to the Panel the particulars of their respective complaints to the Panel under paragraph 27B (1) of the Schedule that the Employer had failed to comply with paragraph 27A (1) which states that the parties must refrain from using any unfair practice. Between the 10 March 2026 and 30 April 2026, the parties provided the Panel with their full written evidence and submissions for consideration.

8)          By its decision dated 19 May 2026, the Panel concluded that the Union’s complaints were not well founded. Although the Union’s complaints were not found to be well‑founded, the Panel recognised, having carefully considered the submissions and documentation presented by the Union, and the fact that a detailed response and explanation was required from the Employer, why the Union had considered it appropriate to raise the matters. The Panel concluded that the Employer had not used an unfair practice as defined in paragraph 27A of the Schedule, and it did not find any evidence of a change, or likelihood of change, in voting intention as defined in paragraph 27B(4)(b). In order to preserve the options available to the CAC when considering a complaint of unfair practices during a ballot if it did go on to find the complaint to be well founded, the release of the ballot result was delayed until after the Union’s complaint had been determined.

9)         The postal ballot papers had been despatched on 5 March 2026, and the workplace ballot took place over 4 days on 6 March 2026 till 9 March 2026 at Apple Cambridge. The last date for the postal ballot papers to be received by the QIP was by noon on 18 March 2026, the day that the ballot closed. 

10)       The QIP reported to the CAC on 18 March 2026, that out of 88 workers eligible to vote, 88 ballot papers had been returned and no ballot paper was found to be spoilt. 17 workers, that is 19% of those voting, had voted to support the proposal that the Union be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining on their behalf. 71 workers, that is 81% of those voting, voted to reject the proposal that the Union be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining on their behalf.

11)       The CAC informed the Employer and the Union on 19 May 2026 of the result of the ballot in accordance with paragraph 29(2) of the Schedule.

4. Declaration that the Union is not entitled to be recognised

12)       The ballot establishes that recognition of the Union is not supported by a majority of the workers voting and so, in accordance with paragraph 29(4) of the Schedule, the CAC declares that the Union is not recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

13)       In accordance with paragraph 29(4) of the Schedule, the CAC declares that the Union is not recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair

Mr Robert Light

Ms Claire Sullivan

1 June 2026