Decision

Unfair Practice Decision

Updated 18 May 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1468(2025)

18 May 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON COMPLAINTS UNDER PARAGRAPH 27B OF SCHEDULE A1

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 “All permanent staff, excluding Managers -This is taken to mean all permanent staff below manager grades. This includes all permanent staff from the “Specialist” position up to and including “Lead” and “Lead Genius”, but does not include Manager, Senior Manager, Store Leader, Market Leader. As FWE (Flexible working employees) staff are employed on a temporary basis they are not included. Acting or Interim managers are considered to be Managers and are not included.” 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. The Panel issued a decision on the bargaining unit on 15 August 2025 determining that the appropriate bargaining unit was: 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)         As the Panel was not satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union, it gave notice 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, having considered the submissions on the form of ballot from both parties, decided that a combination ballot should take place, that is a workplace ballot with a postal element for those workers known in advance to be absent from the workplace on the day of the ballot. On 16 February 2026 the Parties were notified of the name of the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) appointed to conduct the ballot and the arrangements for the ballot.

5)         Once the parties had been notified of the appointment of the QIP the Employer must comply with five duties. The second of these duties (set out in paragraph 26(3) of Schedule 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 – “the Schedule” and “the Act”) is to give the Union such access to workers in the bargaining unit as is reasonable to enable the Union to inform the workers of the object of the ballot and to seek their support and opinions on the issues involved. After a formal hearing on access on 13 January 2026, the parties agreed the terms on which the Union would have access to the workers.

6)         On 10 March 2026 the Union submitted a complaint pursuant to paragraph 27B of the Schedule that the Employer had failed to comply with its duty to refrain from using unfair practices contrary to paragraph 27A of the Schedule. The Union submitted a complaints bundle consisting of four complaint application forms, copy meeting notes, example pay rise letters and announcement, a copy of the Access Decision by the CAC, and further notes. Both sides had the opportunity to put their written evidence and submissions to each other and the Panel and had the opportunity to comment in writing to the Panel on each other’s submissions and evidence. The Panel considered that the Union’s application could be considered on the papers without the need for a hearing as the submissions and evidence were clear and comprehensive and both sides had had an opportunity to bring forward whatever information they wished and neither side had requested a hearing.

7)         Paragraphs 27A and B of the Schedule, insofar as they are relevant, provide that:

27A      (1) Each of the parties informed by the CAC under paragraph 25(9) must refrain from using any unfair practice.

(2) A party uses an unfair practice if, with a view to influencing the result of the ballot, the party-

(g) Uses or attempts to undue influence on a worker entitled to vote in the ballot

27B    (1) A party may complain to the CAC that another party has failed to comply with paragraph 27A.

(3) Within the decision period the CAC must decide whether the complaint is well-founded.

(4) A complaint is well-founded if-

(a) the CAC finds that the party complained against used an unfair practice, and

(b) the CAC is satisfied that the use of that practice changed or was likely to change, in the case of a worker entitled to vote in the ballot-

(i) his intention to vote or to abstain from voting,

(ii) his intention to vote in a particular way, or

(iii) how he voted.

We have also had regard to the statutory code of practice on access and unfair practices during recognition and derecognition ballots 2005.

8)         The complaint received from the Union was as follows:

Complaint 1: Breaching Ballot Secrecy

Complaint 2: Holding Campaign Meetings on Ballot Days

Complaint 3: Pay Rise Inducement and Threat of Pay Rise Withdrawal

Complaint 4: Denying Reasonable Access and Misleading the CAC Panel on this Question

Subsequently a Panel hearing was held based on the paper submissions received from the parties on the access complaint. The hearing took place on 13 May 2026.

3. Summary of Decision

9)         The Panel needs to decide whether the party complained against used an unfair practice and be satisfied that the practice changed or was likely to change, in the case of a worker entitled to vote in a ballot either (i) his intention to vote or to abstain from voting or (ii) his intention to vote in a particular way or (iii) how he voted (as referred to in paragraph 75 of the 2005 statutory code of practice on access and unfair practices during recognition and derecognition ballots (“the Code”)). Considering each of the complaints in turn:

10)       1. Breaching Ballot Secrecy

It is alleged that on Saturday 7 March at approximately 4:00pm a staff member sought assistance from a manager in relation to the ballot, and that the manager instructed a non‑manager and known anti‑union employee to assist. The Employer has provided a written witness statement from the manager concerned, in which the allegation is denied (in particular at paragraph 13 of that statement). The Panel has not been provided with direct evidence from the Union in support of this allegation, such as a witness statement from the employee concerned, nor any supporting evidence from QIP. In the absence of supporting evidence, the Panel is not satisfied that the allegation has been established. Accordingly, this complaint is not well‑founded.

11)       2. Holding Campaign Meetings on Ballot Days

It is alleged that during the first two ballot days (6 and 7 March 2026) the Employer held meetings at which senior managers misinformed staff, discouraged unionisation, and created an atmosphere of intimidation. It is further alleged that attendance was mandatory, that the meetings were held during working hours, and that employees were told the meetings were confidential and that they must not take notes. It is not in dispute that the Employer held two meetings of approximately 30 minutes on those dates. The Employer denies that these meetings were mandatory or that their content amounted to undue influence. The Panel has considered the documentary evidence, including the Union’s notes and the Employer’s witness evidence, which are broadly consistent as to the substance of what was said. The Panel does not accept that employees were told the meetings were confidential or that they were prohibited from taking notes. This is not supported by the Union’s own notes. Accordingly, the allegation of intimidation is not made out. Whilst the content of the meetings may be characterised as partisan, the Panel does not consider that it amounted to misinformation such as to go beyond what is contemplated by paragraph 65 of the Code. The Panel also notes the Employer’s submission that the meetings did not take place during the actual hours of balloting and accepts the evidence provided in witness statements that attendance was not mandatory. In these circumstances, the Panel is not satisfied that the Employer used or attempted to use undue influence. Nor is it satisfied that the matters complained of changed or were likely to change how workers voted. This complaint is therefore not well‑founded.

12)       3. Pay Rise Inducement and Threat of Pay Rise Withdrawal

It is alleged that the Employer’s announcement on 2 March of a national pay increase constituted an inducement, and that the associated wording suggested that union recognition might lead to delay or withdrawal of the increase. It is not in dispute that the Employer announced a national pay increase applicable across its stores. The Employer states that this “special mid‑year pay adjustment” was made for legitimate business reasons, namely increases to national minimum wage rates due to take effect on 1 April 2026, and that it applied to approximately 4,400 employees across 39 stores. The Employer accepts that its communication referred to the possibility of delay where a collective bargaining agreement is in place, and states that this reflected arrangements at a store where a trade union is recognised. The Panel notes the Union’s concerns as to both the timing of the announcement and the wording used, and questions whether the reference to collective bargaining needed to be communicated to all employees when it related to a specific store. However, on balance, the Panel accepts the Employer’s explanation. The pay increase was national in scope and the wording referred to the possibility of delay, rather than withdrawal or loss of the increase. The Panel is not satisfied that the announcement constituted an inducement, nor that it changed or was likely to change how workers voted. Accordingly, this complaint is not well‑founded.

13)       4. Denying Reasonable Access and Misleading the CAC Panel on this Question

It is alleged that, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the CAC document dated 26 January entitled Order on Access Arrangements, the Employer responded to the Union’s request to hold mandatory campaign meetings during working hours on weekends by stating that such access would be unreasonable as it would “have significant impact on practical management of the store”. It is further alleged that the Employer subsequently held mandatory campaign meetings during working hours on both weekdays and weekends, including (but not limited to) Thursday 5 March, Friday 6 March, and Saturday 7 March. The Union submits that, if such meetings were not disruptive when held by the Employer, equivalent access should have been afforded to the Union, and that the Employer thereby misled the Panel in its submissions. The Panel has considered these submissions carefully. It accepts the Employer’s evidence in relation to this complaint. A substantial proportion of the access arrangements were ultimately agreed between the parties at the hearing convened to determine access, and the Panel understands that those arrangements were subsequently complied with. The Panel does not accept that the Employer misled the Panel in its earlier submissions. Evidence was provided as to the significant impact on the practical management of the store that would have been caused by the Union’s proposed arrangements for meetings during working hours. In these circumstances, the Panel is not satisfied that the Employer failed to comply with its obligation to provide reasonable access. Accordingly, this complaint is not well‑founded.

4. Conclusion

14)       Although the Union’s complaints have not been found to be well‑founded, the Panel recognises having carefully considered the submissions and documentation presented by the Union, and the fact that these required detailed response and explanation from the Employer why the Union considered it appropriate to raise these matters. We conclude that the Employer has not used an unfair practice as defined in paragraph 27A of the Schedule, and nor have we found that there was any evidence of a change or likelihood of change of voting intention etc. as defined in paragraph 27B(4)(b).

15)       The Union’s complaint of unfair practice is therefore dismissed. 

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair

Mr Robert Light

Ms Claire Sullivan

18 May 2026