Acceptance Decision
Updated 25 June 2026
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-gmb-astley-signs/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1566(2026)
25 June 2026
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
Astley Signs
1. Introduction
1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 1 May 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Astley Signs (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Production operators, Assembly workers, Metal workers, Welders, Vinylist, Fixers, Painters, CNC operators, Printers, Drivers, Dispatchers & Labourers.”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Astley Signs, Redforrest House, Queen Court North, Earlsway Team Valley, NE11 0BP.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 1 May 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 May 2026 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 Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Joe Corcos and Mr Christopher Burrows. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Lauren Hyatt.
3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 18 May 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 1 June 2026 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The acceptance period was extended again until the 10 June 2026 to allow further time for the membership check to be completed. The acceptance period was extended again until 25 June 2026 in order for the decision to be drafted.
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. The Union’s application
5) In its application the Union said that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 13 March 2026. The Union stated that in a letter dated 24 March 2026 the Employer had refused the request but expressed a willingness to negotiate. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s letter of 24 March 2026 were attached to the Union’s application.
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 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 70. The Union stated that there were 52 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 16 were members of the Union.
8) In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “No”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.
9) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. Finally, the Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 01 May 2026. The Union said it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.
4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s application
10) The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition “12 March 2026 Original Request 01 May 2026”. The Employer did not confirm the date that it had responded to the initial letter. It did confirm that a letter was sent to the GMB requesting additional information, and this letter dated 23 March 2026 was attached to the response document. The Employer also attached to its response document the results of an Acas membership check conducted on 12 February 2026. The Employer also attached an email it sent to GMB union on 10 December 2025 regarding Acas conciliation.
11) The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 01 May 2026. The Employer stated that it had, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist. The Employer provided in its response a copy of communications between itself and Acas.
12) The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 113. The Employer said that there was 46 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
13) When asked whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the bargaining unit the Employer answered “No”.
14) The Employer answered “Yes” when asked whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, and whether had it received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that ‘On 12/03/2026 however GMB withdrew their application to the CAC and confirmed that they would resubmit a new application’. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.
5. Additional comments from the parties
15) On 14 May the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Union. In a further letter dated 14 May 2026 the CAC wrote to the Employer and asked the Employer to clarify the date that the Union’s written request for recognition was received. On the 15 May 2026 the Employer replied, stating:
“Apologies we interpreted this as the application to the CAC.
Attached is the initial request on the 1st of December and my initial response. I’ve also attached their responses back to me and further correspondences.
Everything is date stamped, and you can see their application of the 12th in these documents. There was a revised application made on the 13th.”
16) In a letter dated the 15 May 2026 the CAC wrote to the Employer to ask them to clarify if the Union’s written request for recognition was received on the 13 March 2026. The Employer replied on the 15 May 2026, stating:
“No, the initial letter was received on the 12th of March. The subsequent updated letter was received on the 13th.Attachment shows the 12th on the application…”
6. The membership check
17) To assist in the determination of one of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether members of the union constitute at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)), 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 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 19 May 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
18) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 22 May 2026 and from the Union on 20 May 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
19) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 48 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. In the list supplied by the Employer there were 56 names supplied in total, 8 of which were highlighted in red. The Employer’s covering email send on the 22 May 2022 stated:
“Highlighted in red are the individuals we are discounting as they have supervisory/line management responsibilities.”
20) In a letter of the 26 May 2026 the CAC asked the employer if the workers that had been identified as having supervisory or line management responsibilities on the spreadsheet provided on the 22 May should be included for the purposes of the membership check or not. In an email reply on the 26 May 2026 the Employer stated:
“Yes the employees highlighted in red should be discounted as they are Supervisors or have line management responsibilities. We had agreed with GMB that we would not include anyone with supervisory/line management responsibilities in the bargaining unit.”
21) The list of members supplied by the Union contained 15 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 11, a membership level of 22.9%.
22) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 27 May and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 1 June 2026.
7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership check
23) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 01 June 2026 the Union stated that it acknowledged the results of the check and that it has met the threshold with 20.9%. The Union also stated in its email to the CAC dated 01 June 2026 that:
“My only question would be that of the other 4 members we hold, there is one who works in the office area reducing it to 3, However we have Doubt the company’s information or records are of an accurate nature.”
24) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 28 May 2026 the Employer stated that it believed the discrepancy in the numbers was the result of individuals who had supervisory/team leader responsibilities included, and that these were discounted. The Employer further explained what it considered was “a more suitable and fairer way of dividing the workforce”, however, at this stage the Panel does not require the Employer’s comments on the appropriate bargaining unit as this is a matter that will, if necessary, be addressed at the next stage.
8. Considerations
25) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision.
26) 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 and that the application made in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criterion set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule is met.
Paragraph 36
27) Under paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. Paragraph 171B states that “the required percentage” currently means 10%.
28) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17-22 above) showed that 22.9% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (15 out of 48 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule.
9. Decision
29) For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair
Mr Joe Corcos
Mr Christopher Burrows
25 June 2026