Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 1 June 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR4/008/2026

1 June 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: DERECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

Paul Slevin & Ors

and

Unite the Union

&

Evri Premium (Previously DHL Parcels, DHL Parcels UK, DHL-ECommerce UK)

1. Introduction

1)         Paul Slevin & Ors (the Applicants) submitted an application to the CAC dated 13 April 2026 that a secret ballot should be held to determine whether the bargaining arrangements between Unite the Union (the Union) and Evri Premium (the Employer) in respect of “Linehaul Drivers” (the bargaining unit) should be ended. The CAC gave the parties notice of receipt of the application on 14 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the application to the CAC dated 21 April 2026. The Union also submitted a response to the application to the CAC dated 21 April 2026. The responses were cross-copied and sent to the Applicants.

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 Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Rob Lummis and Ms Joanne Kaye. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case on one occasion. The initial period expired on 28 April 2026. The acceptance period was extended until 29 May 2026 in order to allow time for the Panel to consider the evidence provided by the parties before arriving at a decision.

2. Issues which the Panel is required to determine

4)         The Panel is required by paragraph 115 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the application to the CAC is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 112 to 114 and therefore is to be accepted.

3. The Application

5)         In the application the Applicants stated that the CAC had issued a declaration that the Union was recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit on 24 May 2021 and that there was in place a method by which the Union and Employer conducted collective bargaining. The Applicants confirmed that they were employed by the Employer in the bargaining unit. The Applicants stated that there were 384 workers in the bargaining unit, of whom 171 were known to favour an end of the bargaining arrangements. The Applicants went on to say that a total of 171 workers within the bargaining unit had provided individual written confirmation that they favoured an end to the bargaining arrangements. They say, “This represents significantly more than 10% of the bargaining unit. The supporting evidence consists of recent individual email confirmations from workers within the bargaining unit. The applicants are willing to provide this evidence to the CAC for confidential verification if required.”

6)         When asked to state whether the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to favour an end of the bargaining arrangements and give full details of any evidence supporting this figure the Applicants said “a majority of workers in the bargaining unit are likely to favour an end to the bargaining arrangements. This belief is based on the volume of confirmed written support, the consistency of feedback from workers across multiple locations, and the nature of the evidence held. The applicants hold supporting evidence in the form of individual written confirmations and are willing to provide this to the CAC for confidential verification if required.

7)         The Applicants stated that there had been no previous application under either Part IV or Part V of the Schedule in respect of the same bargaining unit. The Applicants stated that notice of the application had been given, and the application had been copied, to the Employer and the Union, on 13 April 2026.

4. The Employer’s response to the application

8)         In its response to the application, dated 21 April 2026, the Employer said that it understood the application had been made by a single applicant Mr Paul Slevin and that he was a current employee within the bargaining unit. It confirmed that a method of bargaining was in place adding “a recognition agreement, including provisions for collective bargaining, was reached with Unite on 12 April 2022 and expanded by mutual agreement by the Employer and Unite in or about August 2023.” The Employer said that this was still being pursued. It also confirmed that it had received a copy of the workers’ application form to the CAC without the supporting documentation on 14 April 2026. The Employer stated that it had not made any previous application under Part IV or Part V of the Schedule and it was not aware of any previous application having been made by workers.

9)         The Employer stated that there were currently 575 workers in the bargaining unit, which consisted of 361 Linehaul Drivers, 184 Bulk Drivers and 30 Shunters. It stated that it was not aware of the reason for the difference in the number stated by the Applicant(s) and had not had access to any evidence from the Applicant(s) to support the number of workers in the bargaining unit.

10)       The Employer stated that it was not in a position to comment on the numbers of workers known to favour an end to the bargaining arrangements as it had not had sight of any of the evidence relied upon by the Applicant(s) to support the application. In answer to the question whether the Employer considered a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to favour an end to the bargaining arrangements, the Employer said that it was not aware of any evidence to suggest that the majority of workers within the bargaining unit would favour derecognition. The Employer went on to say “an application is not admissible unless the CAC decides that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit would likely favour an end of the bargaining arrangements – paragraph 114 (1)(b) Schedule A1 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Employer notes that the Applicant suggests he has evidence that 171 workers are in favour of ending the bargaining arrangements. Even if the Applicant’s number is correct, it would still only amount to approximately 29.7% of the total bargaining unit (and only approximately 47% of the linehaul drivers). The only other evidence relied upon by the Applicant appears to be “the consistency of feedback from workers across multiple locations, and the nature of the evidence held.” The Employer does not know what feedback or evidence is being referred to. However, in any event the Employer contends that this does not amount to evidence that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to favour an end to the bargaining arrangements.”

5. The Union’s response to the application

11)       In its response to the application dated 21 April 2026 the Union confirmed that there was a method of bargaining in place and that it was still being pursued “save for the extension of the bargaining unit.” The Union said: “a formal recognition agreement is in place between the employer and Unite the Union. The agreement began on 12 April 2022, having been signed on behalf of the parties on or about that date. The agreement covered all the employees engaged as Linehaul Drivers. A facilitation agreement dating from about June 2024, refers to recognition being granted for Bulk Drivers and Shunters, and involved an expansion of the original recognition terms. The position of Unite the Union is that the bargaining unit includes the Linehaul Drivers, Bulk Drivers, and Shunters, and this was agreed about three years ago. It appears from reviewing Mr Slevin’s application that he refers only to Linehaul Drivers, which does not engage the full scope of the bargaining unit and the categories of worker covered by the recognition agreement.”

12)       The Union stated that it had received a copy of the workers’ application form to the CAC and supporting documentation on 13 April 2026. In response to the request for details if it was aware of any previous application to the CAC under Part IV or Part V of the Schedule, the Union replied “N/A”.

13)       The Union stated that it believed that as of 6 February 2026 there were 414 Linehaul Drivers, 228 Bulk Drivers and 32 Shunters in the bargaining unit. “There has been a recent redundancy exercise, which is likely to have reduced the number of employees by about 10%. Mr Slevin includes only a figure for Linehaul Drivers, which Unite is unable to contest at the present time. It is proposed to obtain up to date information from the employer should this application proceed.”

14)       When asked if it disagreed with the Applicants’ statement about  the number of workers that were known to favour an end to the bargaining arrangements the Union said, “Mr Slevin has identified a number, but for understandable reasons, this does not include reference to named employees. The union expects that the number relates only to Linehaul Drivers. It will be necessary in due course for the figures to be verified, but at the present time the union does not have data or information available to disagree with the information provided by Mr Slevin.”

15)       When asked if it considered that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to favour an end to the bargaining arrangements. The Union said that it had provided a stable model of recognition and engagement with the Employer which had included the expansion of the bargaining unit and that its representatives had negotiated with the Employer “in conducting collective bargaining.” The Union said that it had represented members during internal personal hearings such as grievances and disciplinary hearings. The Union went on to say “Unite has provided newsletters to members confirming evidence of communication, and there is a Unite Facebook page for Evri workers and a new WhatsApp group. Unite is trusted by members and has provided a reliable service. The commitment of Unite representatives is evidenced through the statements from Ms Hayes and Mr Gilbert.^{[footnote 1]}Unite negotiates on behalf of members and represents members across the whole bargaining unit. It would not be appropriate for some form of derecognition to impact upon a group within the bargaining unit, and there is no evidence that Mr Slevin’s application covers the whole bargaining unit, which would be a necessary requirement for consideration of an application of this kind. Unite’s clear position is that it is committed to recognition covered by the agreement with the employer and undertakes all necessary representation of members. Mr Slevin is one of a group of former representatives which appears to have formed a separate union known as The Workers Voice. Unite believes that Mr Slevin has presented this application by way of an opportunistic attempt to have Unite removed from dealings with this employer, leaving open the opportunity for The Workers Voice to step in and to seek recognition in the future. Mr Slevin has a personal interest as a named officer of The Workers Voice, and he would have the opportunity to benefit on a personal level if this application was accepted. Unite representatives have a good relationship with our members employed by Evri and it is possible that those who have confirmed that they would like a change in representation, do not understand fully the implications of agreeing to this action. Unite believes that there would not be a majority of the bargaining unit in favour of ending the existing bargaining arrangements and the evidence attached to this response is advanced to confirm the level of work being undertaken, our communication arrangements with our members, and the commitment of Unite and our elected representatives to deliver a high quality service to our members.”

6. The Applicants’ comments on the Employer’s and Union’s responses

16)       In a letter to the CAC dated 28 April 2026 the Applicants emphasised that the de-recognition process administered by the CAC applied only in cases where recognition was achieved through the statutory process, “i.e. if the CAC had declared the union recognised then, after three years, there is a process that an employer or a worker can follow to get the union de-recognised. This application is made under the statutory recognition in respect of Linehaul Drivers only. It does not concern, include, or seek de recognition for employees engaged as Bulk Drivers or Shunters.”

17)       The Applicants said that, in accordance with the application form and guidance, notes it was sufficient to state the number of workers that favoured an end to bargaining arrangements and why the Applicants believed the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to favour an end of the bargaining arrangements and explain what supporting evidence it had. The Applicants quoted the guidance which said “you only need to include the evidence if you are content for the other parties to have sight of it. If necessary, the panel will ask that a confidential check of your evidence is conducted at the appropriate time.”

18)       The nominated representative for the Applicants, Mr Paul Slevin, confirmed that he is an employee and therefore entitled to make an application for de-recognition under Part IV, paragraph 112 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. He confirmed that he was also the General Secretary of Workers Voice Union. He said that the 171 colleagues who had specifically requested to be included in the application were all members of Workers Voice Union and also Linehaul Drivers. He went on to say that each of the 171 employees had sent an individual consent email to Workers Voice Union and that Workers Voice Union held relevant data for each applicant, including but not limited to their name, address, date of birth, and depot location. He added that this information could be used, where necessary, to verify the employees involved in this process. Mr Slevin said that for the avoidance of doubt, Workers Voice Union was not making this application. The application was being made by the 171 employees themselves. Workers Voice Union was simply being used as a tool available/mechanism to assist with verification and to demonstrate that workers within the bargaining unit were likely to favour an end to the current bargaining arrangements. Mr Slevin added “Workers Voice Union is acting as a data controller for this process on behalf of the applicants. The consent emails can be provided, along with any other data reasonably required for this legal process, in support of the 171 employees making the application.”

19)       Mr Slevin said that as an employee, obtaining consent from 171 colleagues to use their personal data for the purposes of an application, by email, is an achievement in itself. “That level of support demonstrates that 47.37% of the national Linehaul Driver workforce favour an end to the existing bargaining arrangements. It also shows that Workers Voice Union currently has more members within the Linehaul Driver bargaining group than are covered by, or actively supporting, the existing arrangements under Unite the Union. As an employee myself, it has not been practically possible for me to engage with every Linehaul Driver across the national workforce. Had I been given the opportunity to do so, I believe the level of support would likely have been even higher. It is also worth noting that the CAC cannot accept an application unless it is satisfied that at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit favour an end to the bargaining arrangements. That threshold has not only been met, but exceeded by a further 37.37%, with 47.37% of the Linehaul Driver bargaining unit supporting the application.”

20)       The Applicants concluded by submitting that the application had been properly confined to the Linehaul Driver bargaining group and was supported by 171 individual employees, representing 47.37% of that group. The Applicants said that level of support significantly exceeded the statutory 10% threshold and provided a clear basis for the CAC to be satisfied that a substantial proportion of the bargaining unit favoured an end to the existing arrangements. “The applicants’ identities should remain confidential because trade union membership is special category data under UK GDPR, and there is a genuine risk of detriment given the treatment of Workers Voice Union founding members and the hostile material circulated within the workplace.”

7. Membership check

21)       To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether at least 10% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit favour an end of the bargaining arrangements (paragraph 110(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be likely to favour an end of the bargaining arrangements (paragraph 110(1)(b), the Panel proposed an independent check of the Applicants making the application and whether they were workers in the recognised 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 the workers employed within the recognised bargaining unit, and that the Applicants would supply (through the nominated representative Mr Slevin) to the Case Manager their full name, date of birth, job role, site location, address, phone number and email). It was explicitly agreed with the parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party.

22)       The information from the Employer was received by the CAC on 1 May 2026 and from the Applicants, through Mr Slevin, on 5 May 2026. The Panel is satisfied that the check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. 

23)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 352 workers in the recognised bargaining unit. The spreadsheet containing the Applicants details contained 170 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Applicants in the recognised bargaining unit was 149, which equated to 42.32% of the bargaining unit.

24)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 6 May 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results by noon on 13 May 2026.     

8. Applicants’ comments on the result of the check

25)       In an email dated 7 May 2025 the Applicants stated that they agreed with the contents of the report prepared as a result of the check. Mr Slevin, on behalf of the Applicants, said that following a review of the unmatched names, he had contacted a number of the individuals concerned and confirmed that several had either left employment or been made redundant in recent weeks, which explained why they no longer appeared on the Employer’s list at the time of the check. The Applicants went on to say that the application had been made collectively by the 170 employees whose details had been provided to the CAC and was not made solely by Mr Slevin. The Applicants explained that the Employer had suspended all of the founding members of Workers Voice Union who were also employees. The Applicants said that that was the primary reason why many workers wished to remain anonymous, otherwise they would have been named openly within the original application. The Applicants went on to say that the application had not been brought by Workers Voice Union itself as an organisation. Rather, it had been brought by employees, many of whom were members of Workers Voice Union, who had simply used the union as a lawful vehicle through which to organise and support the application. Mr Slevin said “all 170 applicants represent the workers I have personally been able to contact across the bargaining unit of approximately 350 linehaul workers. At present, I have not had the practical ability to contact or canvass the remaining workers to ask whether they support an end to the bargaining arrangements under Unite the Union. However, it is clear from the number of employees named on the application, the percentage already being close to 50%, and the fact that a significant number of workers have not yet been approached, that there is a realistic basis to conclude the workforce would likely favour an end to the current bargaining arrangements if given the opportunity to vote.”

26)       The Applicants went on to say “it is also important to consider the practical reality of the workplace. Workers Voice Union currently represents a substantial proportion of the bargaining group, whereas Unite’s membership within the relevant linehaul bargaining unit appears to be significantly lower. In those circumstances, it would not be practical or fair to deny workers the opportunity to express their view through a ballot. The purpose of the application is not to assume the outcome, but to allow the bargaining unit to decide. Refusing to progress the matter to a ballot would, in my respectful view, risk doing a disservice to those employees who have clearly indicated that they no longer wish to be represented under the current bargaining arrangements and wish to have their chosen union considered in the workplace.”

27)       In a further email dated 11 May 2026 Mr Slevin, on behalf of the Applicants, said “further to my comments on the standard check report, I can confirm that since the original application was made, I have continued to gather additional evidence of support for derecognition from workers within the bargaining unit. To date, I have received a further 12 individual emails from Linehaul workers who were not part of the original applicant group, expressing support for derecognition of Unite the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. I also currently expect a further 11 similar responses. I appreciate these additional workers have not been independently verified against the Employer’s bargaining unit list and I am not requesting that the checking exercise be reopened. However, I respectfully submit that this continuing evidence of additional support since the application was made is relevant background information when considering whether a majority of workers are likely to favour derecognition if given the opportunity to vote.”

9. Union’s comments on the results of the check

28)       In an email dated 12 May 2026 the Union said “there is an appearance of conduct relating to the petition which impacts upon its credibility. Normally, a petition is straightforward, and it can be seen that an individual has signed or otherwise consented for their name to be included. With this petition, it appears that individuals were being asked to send a separate email, and at least in the case of “X” whose name appears to have been added when they did not send any email or confirm authority. It may be necessary for your office to undertake further enquiries to assess the level of genuine support in relation to the list provided, and this could include: -

1. Mr Slevin/WVU providing notice of the wording being used to ensure that it was made clear that an affirmative response was to be used in relation to this derecognition application, and

2. For evidence to be provided of an affirmative response, although Unite accepts that this data may need to be inspected confidentially by the CAC for data protection reasons.

I am advised that there are a further four Unite members, with dual membership with the WVU, who have said the same things as regards the issue of authority.”

10. Employer’s comments on the results of the check

29)       In an email dated 13 May 2026 the Employer said that it believed that the application did not meet the relevant requirements for admissibility. The Employer went on to say “this is an application by Mr Slevin in his capacity as a worker under paragraph 112 of Schedule A1 the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Paragraph 114(1) of Schedule A1 indicates that an application under paragraph 112 is not admissible unless both of the following are met:

a. at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit favour an end of the bargaining arrangements; and

b. “a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit would be likely to favour an end of the bargaining arrangements.”

The result of the membership check is that the proportion of names in the bargaining unit is 42.32%. This is some way below 50%+ and does not support the view that a majority of workers would likely favour an end to the bargaining arrangements. The Employer contends that there is no evidence to suggest any other workers within the bargaining unit would favour derecognition of Unite.”

30)       The Employer said “Mr Slevin relies upon the membership of his new union, the Workers Voice Union as evidence of the level of support.  The Employer notes from the response document submitted to the CAC by Mr Slevin that the level of membership in the Workers Voice Union has been achieved, at least in part, by offering very low subscription costs. Despite this apparent financial benefit, the level of membership is still less than 50%. There is no evidence to suggest support is likely to increase beyond its current levels. In any event there is no direct evidence of whether the workers that have joined the Workers Voice Union are actually in favour of the de-recognition of Unite. Some workers may be members of both unions. Some workers may still prefer Unite for the purposes of collective bargaining. 

31)       The Employer said “the membership count has been conducted on the basis that the application relates to Linehaul Drivers only. Both the Employer and Unite in their responses to the CAC have expressed the alternative view that in assessing Mr Slevin’s application for de-recognition the full bargaining unit, i.e. as amended, should be taken into account and not just that part of the bargaining unit that was the subject to the original application for statutory recognition. The Employer makes the following points:

a. This question does not appear to be explicitly addressed in Schedule A1 or in the guidance. 

b. The Employer contends that the intention of Schedule A1 is to encourage the parties to reach agreements between themselves. For example, in the event of a successful ballot and the CAC issuing a declaration that the union is entitled to be recognised, the parties still have the opportunity to reach an agreement on a method for collective bargaining first between themselves (paragraph 30) and then with the CAC’s support (paragraph 31(2)) before any method is imposed. The parties have a wide discretion as to precisely what can be agreed. In this case, following the outcome of the ballot of the Linehaul Drivers in favour of recognition, the Employer and Unite entered into a recognition agreement on 12 April 2022 based on a version of the specified method. 

c. In addition, the Employer contends that any agreement that is reached through the statutory recognition process should not be regarded as ‘static’ but something that is capable of amendment by mutual consent. The recognition agreement agreed by the Employer and Unite includes a provision (which also appears as clause 28 in the specified method) allowing the parties to vary the agreement by mutual agreement. 

“Revision of the Agreement

14.1 The Company or the Union may request in writing a meeting of the JNB to discuss revising any element of this method, including its status as a legally binding contract. A quorate meeting of the JNB shall be held within ten working days of the receipt of the request by the JNB Secretary. This meeting will be held in accordance with the same arrangements for the holding of other JNB meetings.”

d. The agreement was amended by mutual consent in or about August 2023 to include Bulk Drivers and Shunters. 

e. The Employer contends that the CAC is entitled to take the extension of the bargaining unit into account in assessing admissibility. There are currently approximately 184 Bulk Drivers and 30 Shunters. Mr Slevin does not appear to be claiming any members from this population. This would suggest that across the full bargaining unit, as amended, support for derecognition is no higher than approximately 26%.    

f. The Employer would contend that by not taking the extension of the bargaining unit into account, there would be the risk of creating an artificially fragmented bargaining units and to ignore existing national and local bargaining arrangements, both factors that the CAC is required to take into account in the context of whether a proposed bargaining unit is appropriate (paragraph 19B of Schedule A1).”

11. Considerations

32)       In deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must determine whether the admissibility provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of all parties and the supporting documentation in reaching its decision.

33)       The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 112 or 113 of the Schedule. The Panel has noted the comments of the Union and the Employer that the bargaining unit subject to the application should not be confined to Linehaul Drivers alone, but the wider remit agreed in a facilitation agreement dating from about June 2024, to also include Bulk Drivers and Shunters, thereby expanding the original recognition terms. Paragraphs 112 to 121 of Part IV of the Schedule set out the procedures through which a worker or workers can apply to the CAC to end bargaining arrangements that are in place as a result of a CAC declaration of recognition. Part IV applies “if the CAC has issued a declaration that a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit”. The only relevant bargaining arrangements that emanate from a CAC declaration relate to Linehaul Drivers. The Panel have determined that the legislation cannot be taken to include any future voluntary agreements to extend the categories of worker which then become subject to that statutory declaration. Revising a method of collective bargaining and keeping this under review is substantially different from revising and reviewing the workers that should constitute the bargaining unit. Therefore, the remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 114(1)(a) and 114(1(b) are met.

Paragraph 114(a)

34)       Under paragraph 114(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that at least 10% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit favour an end to the bargaining arrangements.

35)       The Panel is satisfied that of the 170 applicants making the application 149 of them are workers in the bargaining unit. This constitutes 42.32% of the bargaining unit. The fact they have made the application is sufficient evidence to support a decision that at least 10% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit favour an end of the bargaining arrangements as required by paragraph 114(1)(a) of the Schedule. 

Paragraph 114(1)(b)

36)       Under paragraph 114(1)(b) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be likely to favour an end of the bargaining arrangements. The CAC has heard from one of the applicants who confirms the position outlined by the Union in paragraph 28 above that they had not confirmed their willingness to be added as an applicant by email. The CAC has also received 12 individual emails from workers in the bargaining unit who were not applicants all stating, “although not one of applicants for Unite Union derecognition, I fully support my colleagues in seeking derecognition of Unite the Union for the purpose of collective bargaining of linehaul drivers.” These were sent from personal email addresses with full name and depot provided. A quick verification of this information has shown that all 12 of these individuals appeared on the list provided by the Employer for the purposes of the check detailed in paragraph 23 above.

37)       The Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be likely to favour an end of the bargaining arrangements. The indicated level of support is already in excess of 40%. In the panel’s experience, the number of those who support the application is likely to be in excess of this by some margin. This is despite the caveats set out by the Union. 

12. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Rob Lummis

Ms Joanne Kaye

1 June 2026

---

1. A statement from the Unite convenor, Ms C Hayes dated 19 April 2026, and an employee representative Mark Gilbert dated 18 April 2026 were attached to the Union’s response form. The Union also attached a copy of an unsigned facilitation agreement and recently issued newsletters. ↩