Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 22 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1474(2025)

22 September 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

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”, 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.

3)         By its written decision dated 3 July 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. As the Employer failed to comply with its duty to provide specified information direct to the Union within the timeframe set by paragraph 18A(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) the Panel therefore proceeded under paragraph 19 of the Schedule by moving to a hearing to determine whether the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate. 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.

4)         A hearing was held by virtual means on 28 August 2025. The Panel’s decision was that the appropriate bargaining unit was that as proposed by the Union, namely: “All staff, excluding Heads of Service, employed by Sapphire Technologies Ltd and considered part of Managed Services at The Ink Building 24 Douglas Street, Glasgow, G2 7NQ. Comprising of Azure Cloud Engineer, Engineering Support Technician, Security Engineering Manager, Security Support Technician, Senior Security Analyst, SOC Cloud Engineer, SOC Engineer, SOC Support Engineer, Technical Account Manager, Threat Intelligence Analyst, Tier 1 Security Analyst, Tier 2 Security Analyst, Tier 3 Security Analyst, Vulnerability Management Specialist and XDR Analyst”. The proposed bargaining unit was the same as the one in the Union’s application, albeit with the roles listed individually to provide greater clarity.

2. Issues

5)         Paragraph 22 of the Schedule provides that, if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of these qualifying conditions is fulfilled. 

The three qualifying conditions are:

(i)        the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.

(ii)       the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

(iii)      membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. 

Paragraph 22(5) provides that “membership evidence” for these purposes is:

(a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or

(b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.

3. The Union’s claim to majority membership and submission that it should be recognised without a ballot

6)         In an e-mail dated 5 September 2025 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an e-mail dated 5 September 2025, stated that it was claiming a majority of membership in the bargaining unit and it should be granted recognition without a ballot.

4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s claim that it should be recognised without a ballot

7)         The CAC copied the Union’s e-mail of 5 September 2025 to the Employer and invited the Employer to make submissions in relation to the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and in relation to the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.

8)         In its response e-mail dated 11 September 2025 the Employer stated, “Sapphire see’s the email from the Union regarding their membership. As per previous statements,  Sapphire does not believe that individuals agreed to Union membership on the basis that the Union would negotiate pay for them. We would urge the Panel to put this to a vote to ask the individuals how they wish to be represented, either represented by the Union or by our Employee Forum”.

9)         The CAC forwarded the Employer’s e-mail dated 11 September 2025 to the Union for its comments on the 15 September 2025. The Union responded on the same day stating that “From the employer’s response, I don’t see anything that satisfies the criteria set out by the Panel for qualifying conditions. The employer has not submitted any evidence, credible or otherwise, that members do not wish to the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. We have evidence in the density of members who have unilaterally joined the CWU for the purposes of being represented for collective bargaining. Whether the Employer believes this or not is irrelevant for the purposes of this process”.

5. Considerations

10)       The Schedule requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must declare the Union to be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit unless it decides that any of the three qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. If the Panel considers that any of those specific conditions is fulfilled, it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot. 

11)       The membership and support check conducted on 26 June 2025 had shown the Employer listing a total of 30 workers in the bargaining unit. As stated in the acceptance decision dated 3 July 2025, the Union had provided a spreadsheet listing 19 union members. The number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 19, a membership level of 63.33%. Neither party has suggested that these figures are now out of date. Accordingly, the Panel accepts that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

12)       The Panel has considered the correspondence received from both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision as to whether any of the qualifying conditions laid down in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled.

Paragraph 22(4) (a)

13)       The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. In this case neither party has submitted evidence or any persuasive reasons that holding a secret ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations. The Panel is therefore satisfied that this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (b)

14)       The second condition is that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The CAC has no such evidence and this condition does not apply.

Paragraph 22(4) (c)

15)       The third condition is that membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced by the Employer to support its assertion that workers joined the union for reasons other than collective bargaining and so this condition does not apply.

6. Declaration of recognition

16)       The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising of  “All staff, excluding Heads of Service, employed by Sapphire Technologies Ltd and considered part of Managed Services at The Ink Building 24 Douglas Street, Glasgow, G2 7NQ. Comprising of Azure Cloud Engineer, Engineering Support Technician, Security Engineering Manager, Security Support Technician, Senior Security Analyst, SOC Cloud Engineer, SOC Engineer, SOC Support Engineer, Technical Account Manager, Threat Intelligence Analyst, Tier 1 Security Analyst, Tier 2 Security Analyst, Tier 3 Security Analyst, Vulnerability Management Specialist and XDR Analyst”

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Dr Steve Jary

22 September 2025