Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 22 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1469(2025)

22 September 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

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)         By a decision dated 30 June 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Following this decision, the parties reached agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. The agreed bargaining unit was described as “workers within ASDA Stores Ltd working in ASDA’s distribution network (Asda Logistics Services) across all ALS depots in the UK with the following job titles: Finance Administrator (known in depots as Finance and Depot Administrator), Flow Analyst, Operations Support SME, Stock and Systems Shift Manger (known in depots as Stock and Systems Manager), Systems Operations Manager, Transport Department Manager, Transport Operations Manager, Transport Shift Manager, Warehouse Department Manager, Warehouse Operations Manager, Warehouse Planning Manager and Warehouse Shift Manager. This excludes the roles of General Manager and Finance Manager.” As the agreed bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union, the Panel was required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application was valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

4)         After a further check of membership, the Panel issued a decision dated 18 August 2025 that the application was not invalid and that the CAC would be proceeding with the application.

5)         In a letter from the Case Manager dated 18 August 2025, the Union was asked whether it claimed that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union. By a letter dated 18 August 2025 the Union said that it did not believe it had majority membership within the bargaining unit.

2. Issues

6)         On 18 August 2025, the Panel, not satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that a secret ballot would be held. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule, before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

7)         The notification period under paragraph 24(5) ended on 29 August 2025. The CAC was not notified by the Union or by both parties jointly that they did not want the ballot to be held, as per paragraph 24(2) of the Schedule.

3. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

8)         In a letter dated 21 August 2025 the Employer stated its preference for a fully postal ballot. The Employer said:

1.         The ballot involved workers at 23 different ASDA sites throughout the UK who worked a range of hours given the nature of the logistics and distribution business. The Employer said a postal ballot would ensure the ability to vote by avoiding the complexities of having to safeguard workplace ballot boxes for 24 hours a day over a 4-week period to reflect the working hours. The Employer said that it was disproportionate to have to deal with all the complexities of securing the ballot boxes from interference, ensuring all the workers received a ballot paper, making rooms available to put the ballot boxes in for long periods of time and supervising workplace voting across such a large number of sites when this could be avoided and addressed by a postal ballot. The Employer also argued that a postal ballot would be more cost and resource effective.

2.         The Employer said that a postal ballot would ensure that workers in the bargaining unit would all have an opportunity to vote and could do so over the duration of the ballot period. Special arrangements would also not have to be made for those workers on holiday during the workplace ballot.

3.         The Employer said that a postal ballot ensured that workers had the opportunity to vote without undue influence and interference and in private. It added that postal ballots avoided the risk of peer pressure to vote in a particular way or give their ballot paper to others to vote on their behalf.

4.         Finally, the Employer said that the CAC had full and accurate records of all of the workers in the bargaining unit so it could be assured that ballot papers would be posted out to the correct home addresses.

4. Union’s submissions on the form of ballot

9)         Parties were invited to submit their representations on form of ballot by 22 August 2025. The relevant period elapsed without any representations from the Union. It was only on 8 September 2025 that the Union’s representations were received. As the Union was out of time and having received the Employer’s representations within the appropriate timeframe the Panel could have decided that it would not take into consideration any late representations. However, on this occasion the Panel did decide to allow the Union’s representations taking into account the summer break and annual leave. In the e-mail dated 8 September 2025 the Union said its preference was for a workplace ballot. The Union went on to explain that a workplace ballot was the most appropriate and practicable method in this case for the following reasons:

• “Accessibility: The workers in the bargaining unit report for duty at the workplace, making on-site voting straightforward and inclusive. Postal ballots risk disenfranchising workers with unstable or shared addresses, those who move frequently, or those who experience irregular access to post.

• Turnout and Representativeness: Workplace ballots achieve consistently higher levels of participation than postal ballots. Higher turnout ensures the result genuinely reflects the wishes of the bargaining unit, in line with the CAC’s duty to secure a representative outcome.

• Efficiency and Reliability: A workplace ballot avoids delays, lost or mis-delivered postal papers, and confusion. The process can be completed more quickly and securely on site.

• Fairness: The ballot will be overseen by an Independent Qualified Person (IQP) appointed by the CAC, ensuring secrecy, integrity, and neutrality. There would be no risk of unfairness, as private rooms or designated areas could be provided to allow workers to vote confidentially and securely. This measure guarantees that no worker can be pressured or influenced in how they cast their vote.

• No Practical Barriers:

1. The workplace is suitable for ballot arrangements (private rooms or designated areas can be used, with provisions for shifts). There are no operational or logistical obstacles preventing a secure on-site ballot.

2. While we understand that a multi site ballot may be harder to administer, it would not be fair to potentially disenfranchise a workforce simply because they are employed within a multi site CBU. An extended ballot timetable could allow a QIP more time to conduct a ballot. The shifts are 6-2 / 7-3 and 2-10.

3. These workers are all site based and therefore casting a vote is a simple, short process that will not interrupt the operations of the employer - in the same way we have agreed access to this group of workers during operational hours with minimal disruption.

4. GMB and ASDA have years of experience of organising meetings across multiple locations, whilst we understand the issues pertaining to the practicality of using one QIP, we would request that with an extended ballot period, we could agree a draft timetable with both ASDA and the QIP that would suit the request for a workplace ballot.

• Costs: The employer and the union are mature organisations that can well bear the costs of a multi-site ballot.”

5. Further information from the Union on location and shift patterns of the workers

10)       After considering the above submissions the Panel asked the Union to provide additional information detailing locations and shift patterns. On 10 September 2025 the Union attached a spreadsheet to a covering e mail containing the information outlined in the original specified information namely manager breakdown by depot dated 24 July 2025. This also gave a breakdown of the number of workers at each site that would be balloted and their respective roles. This spreadsheet listed a total of 23 depots located as follows: Bedford CDC, Brackmills, Bristol CDC, Chepstow ADC, Dartford ADC, Didcot ADC, Erith CDC, Erith XDC, Falkirk CDC, Grangemouth ADC, Lutterworth ADC, Lutterworth CDC, Lutterworth IDC, Lymedale, North East Clothing, Skelmersdale CDC, Teesport, Wakefield ADC, Wakefield CDC, Warrington ADC, Washington ADC, Washington CDC, and Yorkshire XDC.

11)       In the covering e mail the Union said that it had requested a workplace ballot to ensure the highest levels of participation. The Union said that it understood that the practicalities of running a workplace ballot was one of the considerations for the Panel and they wanted to provide additional comments to help the Panel in making this assessment. The Union went on to say:

“ASDA Distribution has 23 workplaces across the UK excluding NI. The majority of these workplaces are grouped into regional clusters of 2-4 depots, (some of these clusters are in the same industrial parks and are next to or very close to each other), the clusters are as follows:

• South West: Chepstow and Bristol

• South East: Dartford, Erith CDC and Erith XDC - also Bedford and Didcot

• Midlands: Lutterworth IDC, Lutterworth CDC, Lutterworth ADC, also Brackmills and Lymedale.

• North East (Yorkshire): Wakefield CDC, Wakefield IDC, Wakefield XDC

• North East (Tyne and Wear): Washington CDC, Washington ADC, Teesport and North East Clothing

• North West: Skelmersdale and Warrington 

• Scotland: Falkirk and Grangemouth

The depots all follow the same shift patterns:

• 6-2 (plus a 7-3 in some depots) 

• 2-10

• Some (but very few) will work a night shift

We would propose that workers who fall outside the 6-2 / 7-3 / 2-10 shifts could receive a postal ballot in addition to anyone else that requests a postal ballot in advance, for example because they are on annual leave during the ballot period (as happened in the Amazon ballot). Alternatively, or additionally where there are tight clusters of workplaces we would request the employer allows a colleague paid release to attend an alternative site, (where one is in walking distance) to vote, if they are not at work on the same day as the ballot at their designated workplace.”

12)       The Union said that it had a long history of holding annual (often more) workplace ballots across every depot in the ASDA network on behalf of hourly paid colleagues. It said that there were 12,000 hourly paid colleagues, the majority of whom were Union members. The Union said that the Employer had always facilitated access, space and the ability for “their colleagues” to come and vote. The Union accepted that whilst these were internal ballots, it demonstrated that workplace ballots need not be disruptive and had been organised on a far larger scale across all of the ASDA depots. 

13)       The Union said that it believed that a QIP would be able to run a ballot of this nature, however it accepted this would come with an additional cost. The Union said that it was the third largest trade union in the UK, and was a mature organisation committed to ensuring workers had access to democratic processes “that build their collective voice. Likewise, ASDA is the UK’s third largest retailer with a total revenue of £21.7 Billion.”  The Union went on to say that the Employer could have entered a voluntary agreement with the Union when they understood the level of support amongst the workforce, the Union said that “in not doing so they have accepted there will be a cost related to the running of a ballot. The cost of a workplace ballot should not be a deterrent to the CAC in ensuring the highest levels of participation, i.e. via a workplace ballot, particularly when both organisations concerned are large, mature organisations capable of bearing the cost.”

14)       The Union said that it believed that a dangerous precedent would be set if the Panel were to authorise a postal ballot simply due to the practicalities or cost of organising a workplace ballot across multiple sites being too onerous. The Union said that “workers should not be denied the opportunity to participate as fully as possible simply because their workplace is organised across multiple sites. We must work together to ensure a fair and democratic process prevails. We know the blocks that postal ballots place on participation, it is why this voting practise will be reviewed under the Employment Rights Bill. We call on the CAC to keep participation as its guiding principle when making a judgement on the form of ballot in this case.”

6. Employer’s comments on the further information provided

15)       In a letter dated 15 September 2025 the Employer said that it maintained its position that a fully postal ballot was cost effective, practical, fair and less disruptive than a hybrid one. The Employer went on to say “Schedule A1, paragraph 25 of the Act identifies the following factors be taken into account in deciding which form of ballot to hold: 1. The likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace or workplaces; 2. Costs and practicality; 3. Such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate. Given the GMB has requested a hybrid ballot under paragraph 25(6) the CAC may only decide such ballot be conducted if there are special factors making such a decision appropriate. Those special factors include: 1. Factors arising from the location of workers or the nature of their employment; 2. Factors put to the CAC by the employer or the union (or unions).”

16)       The Employer said that it disputed the Union’s assertion that a workplace ballot was necessary to ensure participation in the ballot. The Employer also disputed the Union’s reference to it setting “a dangerous precedent”. The Employer said that there was no basis for either contention. The Employer submitted:

1. “A postal ballot clearly allows every person in the proposed bargaining unit (the managers) a clear, free and unencumbered ability to vote;

2. A postal ballot allows the managers to choose when to vote and how to vote, free of any in the moment influence from peers, the GMB or indeed ASDA. It prevents the risk of any individual seeking to chorale others to vote together or vote in a particular way;

3. The efficacy of a postal ballot is entirely recognised in industrial action ballots, particularly for allowing private votes without interference;

4. Our contentions have been upheld in Community and Euro Car Parts where the CAC decided at paragraph 12 that: the Panel is persuaded that a postal vote will enable private consideration of voting preference and is most likely to result in an outcome in which the parties have confidence.”

17)       The Employer said that in terms of practicality 95% of ASDAs products sold in its stores were supplied from the depots the managers worked at. The Employer went further and said “these depots are therefore central to ASDA’s operations. We contend a hybrid ballot is less practical than a postal one as: 1. The GMB’s reasons for excluding some managers from a workplace ballot is a happenstance of the shift they work, the distance between depots and whether they are on holiday. This does not present a coherent basis for a hybrid ballot. It also leaves unanswered how these individuals will be identified so they receive a postal ballot; 2. Contrary to the GMB’s representations, holding workplace ballots at a single site in a region is impractical and highly disruptive to ASDA’s business. By way of example: a. The distance between Grangemouth and Falkirk is 2.6 miles and takes 48 minutes to walk based on Google maps; b. The distance between Washington ADC and CDC is 2.2 miles though they are on the same industrial park and a 48-minute walk; c. The distance between Wakefield ADC and CDC is 2.1 miles and a 46-minute walk; d. The distance between Chepstow and Bristol is 18 miles and about a 30-minute drive. So, accounting for 10-15 minutes to cast a vote and there broadly being 10 managers at each location that is close to two hours of lost working time a manager and roughly 60 hours of lost productivity for managers travelling from one of these sites to another alone. This is then multiplied further for all the regions the GMB have proposed to mean hundreds of lost hours; 3. There are significant practical and logistical problems in organising groups of managers travelling to other sites on different shifts; 4. The GMB’s proposals do not address the practical problems of ensuring the integrity of workplace ballots at multiple locations. Specifically: a. The need to supervise/ensure there is no interference with the ballot boxes for the 24 hours these sites operate seven days a week over the four weeks of the ballot; b. Alternatively, the need to organise and supervise/ensure there is no interference with the ballot boxes at the start and end of each shift (which can be late at night or very early in the morning) for four weeks is complex, time consuming and potentially disruptive; c. There is no suggestion of who will supervise/secure the ballot boxes. Assuming this will be the QIP, this presents substantial challenges to it given the 24 hours a day, seven days a week for four weeks this would need to be maintained; d. There is also no suggestion of how the ballot boxes will be secured overnight. Again, this would be challenging for the QIP.”

18)       The Employer said that the costs related to the practical problems above meant that “there are substantial cost implications which dwarf those of a postal ballot where the costs are known and fixed. They are: 1. The cost of securing and supervising the ballot boxes as explained above; 2. The lost productivity of the managers having to travel to other sites to managers. As a rough conservative estimate, based on an average salary of managers this would be £17,000. This takes no account of any operational or productivity losses suffered as a result. In contrast, the cost of two second class stamps to send and return the ballot for all the managers is about £1,650 without any of the attendant disruption. So, we argue cost considerations overwhelmingly favour a fully postal ballot. Furthermore, ASDA is a business that is in a period of turnaround. Just two weeks ago it completed introducing a new IT system in all of its distribution centres where managers in the proposed bargaining unit are based. The time cost of these managers spending prolonged time away from their work during in a crucial period for the business is significant.”

19)       In terms of location the Employer said that there was no dispute that the 23 depots were located throughout the UK. The Employer said that this was not a single site ballot. The Employer said “Asda Internal number of locations increases the complexity of running a hybrid ballot. In contrast, a postal ballot secures an equal and full entitlement vote across the UK using a fully tried and tested method. ASDA does not accept the analogy the GMB seeks to make with pay ballots for hourly paid colleagues. This happens as part of established recognition arrangement for voting on pay. It is a one off, not something to be managed over a four-week period. It is also a wholly unregulated ballot run by the GMB without any requirements to secure a fair, private and unhindered opportunity to vote. It is irrelevant to refer to the government’s review of industrial action and trade union ballots. Other forms of ballot do not exist, and the CAC’s options are postal, workplace or hybrid.” The Employer concluded by saying that there was no foundation to the Union’s suggestion that a postal ballot was undemocratic. The Employer added that a postal ballot was recognised as the appropriate method for a range of statutory ballots, “as well as being how about a quarter of the electorate cast their votes in a General Election.” The Employer said that it was unsustainable for the Union to suggest that the CAC could not determine this matter on cost and practicality grounds “when it is charged to take them into account.”

7. Considerations

20)       When determining the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations specified in paragraphs 25 (5) and (6) of the Schedule:

(a)        the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;

(b)       costs and practicality;

(c)        such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

(6) The CAC may not decide that the ballot is to be conducted as mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(c) unless there are special factors making such a decision appropriate; and special factors include-
 

(a) factors arising from the location of workers or the nature of their employment;

(b) factors put to the CAC by the employer or the union (or unions).

21)       The parties have put forward different types of ballot for the Panel to consider. The Union have argued for a workplace ballot (or a combination of the two methods), whereas the Employer has submitted that the ballot should be a postal ballot.

22)       The Panel has considered carefully the arguments of both parties and taken into account the considerations specified in the Schedule:

(a) In the judgement of the Panel, there is no substantiating evidence to suggest that a workplace ballot would likely be affected by unfairness or malpractice. However, the Panel is persuaded that a postal vote will enable private consideration of voting preference and is most likely to result in an outcome in which the parties have confidence.

(b) In the judgement of the Panel, a postal ballot would incur lower costs. Further, when assessing the issue of practicality, the Panel has taken into account both the practical needs of workers in terms of accessibility and participation, and the practical needs of the Employer, in terms of the shift patterns at the workplace and the potential for a workplace ballot to disrupt commercial activity given the shift patterns. It is the assessment of the Panel that a postal ballot is far more practical than a workplace ballot. The sites that form the agreed bargaining unit are distributed throughout the country. In our view, it would be significantly more expensive to hold a workplace ballot than a fully postal ballot given the geographical spread of the workers.

(c) The Panel accepts that a postal ballot may result in a rather lower turnout but, nonetheless, consider the factors mentioned above are of such significance that they make a postal ballot more suitable. No other considerations were deemed as appropriate.

8. Decision

23)       The decision of the Panel is that the ballot should be a postal ballot.

24)       The name of the QIP appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Panel

Mr Benjimin Burgher

Ms Amanda Ashworth

Mr Morris Stemp.

22 September 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. ↩