Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 30 June 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1469(2025)

30 June 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:

GMB

and

ASDA Stores Limited

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 19 May 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by ASDA Stores Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Salaried managers within ASDA Stores Ltd working in ASDA’s distribution network (Asda Logistics Services) across all ALS depots in the UK (these managers are also referred to as Graded or Zone managers in the Depot Managers Handbook and CSP policy document). Their job titles include but are not limited to roles such as: General Manager, Warehouse Operations Manager, Transport Operations Manager, Finance Manager, Transport Shift Manager, Warehouse Shift Manager, Warehouse Department Manager, Transport Department Manager.”^{[footnote 1]} The location of the bargaining unit was given as “23 depots across the UK.” The application was received by the CAC on 19 May 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 20 May 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 27 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 Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Amanda Ashworth and Mr Morris Stemp. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 3 June 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 30 June 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving at a decision.  

2. Issues

4)         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.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer on 28 March 2025. The Union said that the Employer responded stating, “they were unwilling to enter into a voluntary agreement but said they would be prepared to use ACAS to verify levels of support and if support is shown they would consider whether a voluntary agreement is possible.” The Union added that there was engagement with Acas but no voluntary agreement was reached. The Union attached a copy of its request dated 28 March 2025 together with the Employer’s response dated 10 April 2025.

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 “No.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties and that the Union had agreed to this. When asked to provide details of the Acas contact the Union said “GMB agreed that ACAS could verify membership numbers and hold an email ballot on the basis that an MOU was signed which meant ASDA would agree to signing an agreement no less favourable than the one the CAC would impose, ASDA would not agree to this so the CAC application was made.”

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 150000. The Union stated that there were 1100 – 1200 workers in the proposed bargaining unit but that the Employer did not agree with this number. When asked to state the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the union did not provide a response. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union did not provide a response.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “they are recognised by ASDA as a cohesive group of workers within the business. Salaried managers that manage operations across ASDA’s distribution network. Their pay and conditions are set as one group, and the business treat them as such.”  The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Union answered “No.”

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union said that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 19 May 2025 and consented to its contact details being provided to Acas.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 28 March 2025. The Employer said that it responded on 10 April 2025 proposing further Acas facilitated discussions. The Employer said that the e-mail confirmed the discussions that had taken place on 4 and 9 April 2025 between Nicki Benfold, Lead Strategic Business Partner, Asda Logistics Services (ALS) and Nadine Houghton, National Officer, GMB. The Employer said that it had agreed to engage with Acas and, subject to the required levels of membership and support being shared by the Union and independently verified through Acas, the Employer would enter into discussions with the Union regarding a voluntary agreement. The Employer attached a copy of that e-mail.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 19 May 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said “the bargaining unit is not clear to Asda. We do not accept that it is a single cohesive group of workers as suggested by the GMB. The identified categories of managers in the written request to Asda and the CAC are different. We reserve the right to provide a more detailed response when the CAC considers the proposed bargaining unit.”

12)       The Employer said that it currently employed a total of 128,130 workers at ASDA and a total of 12,701 at ALS. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer said that there were 1,041 salaried managers in ALS.  The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered “N/A because the GMB has not provided any membership information.”

13)       When asked 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 said “we have seen no evidence that there is majority support for recognition, and the GMB declined a membership check and poll of workers through ACAS.” The Employer answered “N/A” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and when asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. The membership and support check

14)       To assist in 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 and a petition supplied by the Union. 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 dates of birth) as well as a copy of its petition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 29 May 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

15)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 2 June 2025 and from the Employer on 4 June 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

16)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 1041 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 246 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 176 a membership level of 16.91%.

17)       The Union also provided the results of a petition in the form of a spreadsheet which consisted of 13 columns headed, “ID”, “Start time”, “Completion time,” “Email,” “First Name”, “Surname”, “I’m happy to sign the petition in support of GMB recognition for salaried managers in ALS,” “Depot name,” “Job title,” “Mobile Number,” “Are you a GMB member,” “GMB membership number” and “Would you like to receive updates about the campaign?” There were 871 typed entries on the spreadsheet. Of the 871 entries dated from 28 March 2025 up to and including 13 May 2025, 669 were in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represented 64.27% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 669 workers in the bargaining unit, 162 were members of the Union (15.56% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 507 were non-members (48.70% of the proposed bargaining unit).

18)       The Union explained that a QR Code for an online petition and a paper petition were produced and shared with salaried managers in their respective depots. The QR code was also sent out directly to salaried manager members. The petition stated:

The GMB trade union is asking for your employer to recognise the union for collective bargaining purposes. We must show that the majority of workers in the ‘bargaining unit’ support our application.

If you do support us, please sign this petition.

Your employer will not know if you have signed, and the petition can be signed by GMB members AND non-members.

“I support recognition of GMB Trade Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays on behalf of salaried managers in ALS.”

The Union explained that entries were verified by checking the depot name and job title and that contact details were provided. The Union said that where paper petitions were completed, these were input on to the online petition by GMB staff directly. 

19)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 5 June 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 18 June 2025.

6. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

20)       In an e mail dated 9 June 2025 the Union said “we are comfortable that GMB have demonstrated that we have passed the admissibility ‘test’ - through both our membership figures being in excess of 10% and the petition responses demonstrating that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. It is worth noting however that in conversations with the employer at ACAS, there are job titles in the proposed bargaining unit that the employer would like removed. In the event this happens we believe our membership density and number in support of recognition actually becomes a higher percentage.”

21)       In an e mail dated 18 June 2025 the Employer expressed concern over the content of the report and said:

1. “There are material inconsistencies between the data provided by the GMB and our data. There are 70 names provided by the GMB as union members who are not on our list of ALS managers at all. This is a material discrepancy in the quoted union membership number. It accounts for over 28% of the GMB’s quoted membership in the bargaining unit.

2. We took all proper care to ensure the data provided to the CAC is accurate. Without prejudice to any arguments over what the bargaining unit is, we provided data for all our salaried managers across depots using our internal payroll systems. With that in mind, there are a substantial number of duplicates/ unreadable names in the GMB’s petition for support (137). That accounts for nearly 16% of the number of names on the GMB’s petition. Adding that to the 65 employee names not appearing on ASDA’s list means 202 names out of the 871 on the GMB’s petition, or over 23%, are invalid.

3. The names on the GMB’s lists which are also on ASDA’s list only account for 65% of ALS managers. This is a substantial discrepancy.

4. There is scope for manipulation of the GMB’s petition by any person with knowledge of ALS manager names. We have scanned the QR code that the GMB used for its petition and were able to enter anyone’s name and data into it. We could easily input a manager’s data without them even being aware. We did not do so, but anyone knowing ALS managers names could vote for them (or indeed vote more than once as the duplicate votes show). There is no way of assessing the validity of the signatures on the petition. The proportion of workers recorded as signing the petition is such that manipulation of it could affect the GMB showing majority support for recognition.

5. The petition remains open. The QR code for the petition takes the person who scans it to a form. But this form is not dated and there is no reference to a time period within which votes need to be cast.

6. It is important that there is rigour in the way majority support for recognition is evidenced for CAC acceptance purposes. For the reasons set out above, we question whether that rigour exists here. The GMB and ASDA do not know if there has been manipulation of the petition by third parties but it is clear that it can be manipulated in the ways we have identified.

 We ask the CAC to take these matters into account in determining whether to accept the GMB’s application.”

7. Considerations

22)       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 considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

23)       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 12. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

24)       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 proposed bargaining unit. 

25)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 14 to 19 above) showed that 16.91% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 15 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

26)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 25 above the Panel has 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)

27)       Under paragraph 36(1) 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.

28)       The Union carried out a petition of those workers in the proposed bargaining unit. As described in paragraph 17 above, 64.27% of the proposed bargaining unit added their names to the petition. The Panel has not received any statements from those workers in the proposed bargaining unit who had added their names to the petition stating that they wished to withdraw their support.

29)       The Panel has considered the comments made by the Employer (which can be found at paragraph 21 of this decision) that Union membership levels were far less than previously outlined by the Union in their application to the CAC however as stated in paragraph 24 the Panel is still satisfied that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  In relation to the other points raised by the Employer on the petition the Panel assumes that information provided by the parties is accurate and up to date and that any duplicates are removed prior to submission in this case the Union failed to remove duplicate entries, but this does not mean that the remaining entries (669)  that did appear on the Employer’s list amounting to 64.27% of the proposed bargaining unit can be discounted as inaccurate or unreliable. The Panel is not able to test the validity of the signatures or whether the petition could have been manipulated to show likely majority support, in the same way as it is not able to test whether the list the Employer provided contains details of workers falling outside of the proposed bargaining unit in order to inflate the number of workers in the bargaining unit thereby diluting union membership density. Taking the above into consideration and on the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 16.91% when taken with the percentage of non-members signing the petition (48.70%) shows that, on the balance of probabilities, 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.

8. Decision

30)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 22-29 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair

Ms Amanda Ashworth

Mr Morris Stemp

30 June 2025

---

1. In a separate letter dated 3 June 2025 the Union explained that due to issues with the online CAC application form it was unable to replicate the description of the bargaining unit to the one included in the schedule A1 application in its entirety. This led to the following job titles being omitted from the CAC application form: • People coordinators • Finance coordinators • Warehouse planning manager • Stock and systems manager. These were included these were included in the original schedule A1 letter dated 28 March 2025. ↩