Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 3 July 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1474(2025)

03 July 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

Sapphire Technologies Limited

1. Introduction

1)         CWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 9 June 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Sapphire Technologies Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Managed Services Team working for Sapphire, at The Ink Building” based at Ink Building, 24 Douglas St, Glasgow, G2 7NQ. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 9 June 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 13 June 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 Andrew James, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Dr Steve Jary.  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 23 June 2025.  The acceptance period was then extended to 11 July 2025 to allow a membership check to be conducted 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 16 May 2025 by email. The Employer, in its response dated 20 May 2025, rejected the Union’s claim for recognition.

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, “N/A”.  The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 99 and 29 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 19 were Union members. The Union stated, “We are happy to provide a list to the CAC on a strictly confidential basis and/or have the CAC conduct a membership check to validate”.

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, “The membership density is currently sitting at 65.5%. Members have joined the union specifically to achieve recognition and have told CWU/UTAW they want recognition. There are also members outside of this bargaining unit and we believe that membership here is growing”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because “The primary technical team based in the Glasgow office was a natural bargaining unit, other parts of company are considered in separate teams and remote working/different base locations”. The Union confirmed that the 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 9 June 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 19 May 2025. The Employer responded in a letter to the Union dated 20 May 2025 stating, “Regarding the request by the CWU to recognise them in relation to the bargaining unit consisting of the Managed Services Team working for Sapphire, at The Ink Building. After giving it some careful consideration I’m in favour of giving the colleagues who are part of this business unit a say in how they are represented. You mention that a significant proportion of the workforce are already members of the CWU and so I’m sure you will agree that this is the best course of action. I’m happy to discuss this with you, either with the help of ACAS or without and to respond to your application to the CAC in due course. However, we’ll reject your proposal of voluntary recognition for the moment and look forward to opening up a dialogue both with yourselves and with colleagues on their preferred route to representation. I will look forward to speaking to you in due course”.

12)       The Employer also stated that it had a conversation with the Union on 6 June 2025 during which the Union had stated that, “It already had 60% membership, and that voluntary recognition would mean a that a more extensive range of topics would fall under collective bargaining. John also stated that negotiations would be easier if we volunteered recognition. In return we stated that we strongly believe colleagues should be given the choice of how to be represented and that a choice between representation by the CWU and an elected employee representative as part of an employee forum should be offered to them”.

13)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 9 June 2025 by email but was unable to open the email, until 12 June 2025. The Employer, when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before it had received a copy of the application form from the Union, stated “NO”. The Employer considered that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate bargaining unit and confirmed its objections to the proposed unit stating, “We would like to ask the individuals how they wish to be represented rather than making the choice for them”.

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No. We did not know their assistance could be requested as we were unaware of the process. We have no objection to ACAS involvement”.

15)       When asked if the Employer agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the union’s application, the Employer stated “No”. The Employer confirmed that the number of workers in the union’s proposed bargaining unit was 27.

16)       The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

17)       The Employer, when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, and to indicate its reasons for disagreeing, with any available evidence, the Employer’s response was to state, “The Union estimate 29 individuals, we say it is 27, according to our HR System”.

18)       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 confirmed “We do not believe that this group of individuals feel the need to have external representation and would like to give them a choice in who represents them. We do not believe that Union membership automatically means the desire for collective bargaining”.

19)       Finally, the Employer stated “N/A”, when asked 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.   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 answered, “No”.

5. The check of membership and support

20)       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 23 June 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

21)       The information requested from the Union and Employer was received by the CAC on 25 June 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

22)       The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 30 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 19 names.  According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 19, a membership level of 63.33%.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 26 June 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

23)       In its comments dated 26 June 2025, the Union stated “I hope the Panel takes in to consideration these members have joined the CWU with the express wish of being represented for the purposes of collective bargaining. With this membership check result, we hope the panel agrees that it is a reasonable assumption based on the evidence that the majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union”.

24)       In its comments dated 1 July 2025, the Employer stated, “We have no comment at this time. There will be a leaver this month which I am sure you saw from the data I sent.  I doubt that changes things”.

7. Considerations

25)       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. 

26)       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 11. 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)

27)       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 22 above showed that 63.33% 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)

28)       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.

29)       The Panel notes from the membership check that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (63.33%) are members of the Union.  In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf. 

30)       On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided 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

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

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Dr Steve Jary

03 July 2025