Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 15 July 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1467(2025)

15 July 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

Earthpole Limited T/A Airbase GSE

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 9 May 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Earthpole Limited T/A Airbase GSE (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Part Time and Full-Time Warehouse, Fabrication, Manufacturing & Engineering Employees and Transportation and Logistics Department Part time Employees and Full Time Employees”, based at Unit 2, Heathrow Logistics Park, Bedfont Road, Feltham TW14 8EE. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 9 May 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 16 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 Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Mr Nigel Cotgrove.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

3)         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.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 23 June 2025.  The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 18 July 2025.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 31 March 2025 which was sent by post and email. The Employer, in its response dated 15 April 2025, stated, “I can confirm they we are in receipt of your letter regarding your request for us to recognise the GMB Union for our workforce, and we will be in touch shortly with our response”. (sic)

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, “None”.  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 120 and 70 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 44 were Union members. The Union stated that “This can be verified as required and can be supported by provision of a list as and when requested by CAC”. Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”. 

8)         When called upon to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated, “A signed petition for warehouse and drivers is available which exceeds the above membership”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because the individuals work in or from the same building and have similar terms. The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence, and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 7 May 2025.  

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

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 31 March 2025. The Employer responded in a letter to the Union dated 15 April 2025 stating, “I hope I have your email address, correct? There was no reference to it in your letter requesting our recognition of GMB, Apologies for the delay in responding, but with Easter planning and higher levels of leave it’s been an extremely busy couple of weeks. I can confirm they we are in receipt of your letter regarding your request for us to recognise the GMB Union for our workforce, and we will be in touch shortly with our response”. In its response questionnaire, the Employer also stated that it had acknowledged receipt of the Union’s request via email noting that it was not in a position to enter into a voluntary recognition agreement.

12)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 9 May 2025. The Employer, when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before it had received a copy of the application form from the Union, stated “We are open to meeting with ACAS and GMB union to review and mutually agree the proposed bargaining unit including the specific roles to be included under the current GMB proposal”.

13)       The Employer considered that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate bargaining unit and confirmed its objections to the proposed unit by stating, that it would query the number of employees that would potentially fall within the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer also confirmed it would be happy to meet with Acas and the Union to discuss these matters further.

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “We acknowledge the union’s request and confirm that we would welcome the involvement of Acas during this process to ensure fair and constructive dialogue”.

15)       When asked if the Employer agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the union’s application, the Employer stated, “No Based on our internal records, the proposed number in the bargaining unit appears to be overstated and does not account for functional or operational groupings that are managed separately”.

16)       When asked to state the number of workers in the union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference the Employer stated, “Our internal records indicate a total of 79 employees. However, this might be based on the structure and functional groupings within the business, we believe that potentially only 61 employees fall within the appropriate category for inclusion in the proposed bargaining unit”.

17)       When asked to confirm if there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed, the Employer confirmed there was no existing recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

18)       The Employer, when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, and to indicate its reasons for disagreeing, with any available evidence, stated, “We have not been provided with any data regarding union membership or evidence of employee support for recognition. Without this information, we are unable to verify the level of support claimed and therefore cannot confirm the accuracy of the union’s estimate. That said, we remain open to constructive dialogue and would welcome the opportunity to review any supporting information. We are committed to engaging in this process fairly and transparently, and we support the involvement of ACAS to assist in maintaining a collaborative and balanced approach”.

19)       The Employer when asked if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, and to indicate its reasons for taking this view, with any available evidence confirmed that, “There has been no indication from employees or supporting documentation that we have seen as the employer, such as a petition or representative feedback, suggesting that a majority are likely to support recognition”.

20)       The Employer when asked if the application was made by more than one Union confirmed that the application was submitted by a single union.

21)       Finally, the Employer stated “No, we are not aware of any prior applications made by GMB for this or a similar bargaining unit”, when asked it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit.   Asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered, “No other applications have been received under Schedule A1 in respect of this bargaining unit”.

5. The check of membership and support

22)       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 30 June 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

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

24)       The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 54 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 33 names.  According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 29, a membership level of 53.70%.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 2 July 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

25)       Both parties did not submit any comments on the results of the membership report by the deadline imposed.

7. Considerations

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

27)       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 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met. 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

28)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 24 above showed that 53.70% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel has therefore 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)(b) 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)       The Panel notes from the membership check that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (53.70%) are members of the Union.  In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf. 

31)       On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Mr Nigel Cotgrove

15 July 2025