Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 25 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1489(2025)

25 September 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

Bield Housing and Care

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 21 August 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Bield Housing and Care (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “All workers based at Bield Housing & Care, Thornhill Court, Falkirk FK2 9HH.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 21 August 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 29 August 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 Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Bola Olayinka.

3)         The CAC Panel had extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 29 August 2025. The acceptance period was extended to 30 September 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said 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. 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 11 December 2024 by email. The Union stated that on 23 December 2024 it received a formal response from the Employer turning down the request for voluntary recognition. A copy of the Union’s email of 11 December 2024, 15 January 2025 and the Employer’s written response dated 23 December 2024 were attached to the 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 “489.32 FTE”. The Union stated that there were eight workers in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the Union answered “We have 8 members in the proposed bargaining unit. We are happy to agree to a membership check through ACAS or CAC.” When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union said, “We have 100% membership within the bargaining unit and they have outlined clearly to the union that they wish us to pursue recognition.”

8)         When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that “This a distinct unit of operation within Bield Housing & Care.” The Union confirmed 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 stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 21 August 2025.

4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10)       The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s formal request for recognition on 11 December 2024. When asked what its response was, the Employer stated that the Union’s request for recognition was rejected.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application from the Union on 21 August 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 that it did not consider that the proposed bargaining unit to be “compatible with effective management or the other matters to be considered.” The Employer further stated the proposed bargaining unit represented only 1% of the workforce and “The proposed bargaining unit is not a distinct unit of operation”. The Employer further explained that Bield operated 145 services across 22 Scottish local authorities under a centralised service model and single pay structure to ensure consistency for both customers and staff. Creating the proposed unit would undermine this, cause inconsistency in pay and conditions, and result in unequal costs for tenants, who partly fund services. Staff within the proposed unit also differed in roles, pay, and grading, making it unsuitable.

12)       The Employer stated that it did agree with the number of workers in the proposed 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)       In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said, “No evidence of membership available to Bield.”

14)       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 stated, “Not applicable.”

15)       The Employer answered “Not applicable” 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

16)       To assist 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. 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 full names and 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 2 September 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

17)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 3 September 2025 and from the Employer on 4 September 2025. The Union also provided a copy of the ballot paper and the outcome of said ballot asking, “Are you prepared to take part in strike action?”, with the option to cross in a box “YES” or “NO”. The results of the ballot showed that eight out of the eight workers were prepared to undertake strike action, however, this was anonymised, and the identity of these eight workers could not be confirmed.

18)       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 there were eight workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained eight names.

20)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was eight a membership level of 100%.

21)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 5 September 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 10 September 2025.

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

22)       The Union stated, “Commenting on the membership check, I would ask the CAC to reconsider the ballot outcome as admissible evidence. The ballot was of all workers at Thornhill Court as per the trade dispute and the number equalled 8 as it is the same group of workers as the bargaining unit. The legal framework around balloting should reassure the CAC. I would also propose that if workers are prepared to and have taken industrial action to secure collective bargaining then they do indeed want it. It is obviously up to the CAC to decide how much weight they put on the ballot but I do believe it is admissible.”

“In response directly to paragraph 36, we believe both (a) and (b) is satisfied. It is clear, that over 10% of the bargaining unit are GMB members with 100% of the members in the bargaining unit being GMB members. The members in question have been taking and continue to take industrial action to secure recognition, with 100% of them voting to take industrial action. The workers balloted were only the 8 that work at Thornhill Court. I have attached the notice to the employer which includes the description of workers balloted. The ballot is legally compliant and therefore, I believe, can give CAC confidence that the workers at Thornhill Court are seeking recognition.”

7. Summary of the Employer’s comments following the membership and support check

23)       The Employer stated, “we do not have any comments to make in relation to the membership check.”

8. Considerations

24)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision. 

25)       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 11. 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)

26)       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. 

27)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 16 to 21 above) showed that 100% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit 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.

28)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 27 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)

29)       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.

30)       For the reasons given in paragraph 27 above, the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 100%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the test under this paragraph is likewise satisfied.

9. Decision

31)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 24-30 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Matt Smith OBE

25 September 2025