Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 4 March 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1523(2026)

04 March 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

Integrated Water Services (Mechanical and Electrical)

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 3 February 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Integrated Water Services (Mechanical and Electrical) (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All direct labour staff, i.e. those that are eligible for overtime payments”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 4 February 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 10 February 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 Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs Susan Jordan 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 17 February 2026. The acceptance period was then extended to 10 March 2026 to allow a membership check to be conducted and for the parties to comment on the results before the Panel arrived at a decision.

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 17 October 2025. The Employer, in its response dated 31 October 2025 stated it did not accept the Unions request for voluntary recognition but was willing to enter into negotiations in respect of the request.

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 94 and 45 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 28 were Union members. Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “Yes”. 

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, “Membership records could be inspected by a CAC Case Manager if required. A petition was conducted in December 2025, which gathered 30 signatures within the bargaining unit. Subsequent discussions with the employer did not result in agreement”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit as “A consultation was undertaken on changes to contracts in 2025.  This group was selected by the company to be consulted with as a distinct group of employees. This was on the basis that working conditions - overtime rates and arrangements, rate of pay, hours - are similar between employees in the proposed bargaining unit and dissimilar to other employees of the company: salaried staff.”. 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 3 February 2026.  

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 17 October 2025. The Employer responded by stating, “The request was refused at a meeting on 13 January 2026 on the basis that it did not believe that there was sufficient support for the union to be recognised and on the grounds that there is a positive relationship with employees that was not best served by union recognition”.

12)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 3 February 2026. 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 “No”.

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 “The employees intended to be in the bargaining unit are not clear based on the union’s explanation. The Company has addressed the below points on its best understanding, but it cannot be certain as to who exactly is being referred to by the union. The numbers proposed by the union do not appear correct. The number of people who purportedly voted for recognition exceeds the number of members in the bargaining unit. It is unclear why this is the case, and the Company believes this includes balloting of members outside the bargaining unit. The Company also does not believe that the grounds relied on for the bargaining unit make sense – the union is overly reliant on a one-off consultation process which was terminated on the basis of feedback received from employee representatives. In normal circumstances, the employees referred to in the bargaining unit would not be subject to the same negotiations for any contractual changes, particularly when dealing with those terms that would be covered by statutory recognition. Several roles require different pay rates and have different working hours/arrangements”.

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No”. The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application.

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

16)       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, “N/A”.

17)       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, the Employer stated that “The Union has never provided any evidence to support their position. There has never previously been a pro-union stance. The Company has sought to engage with employees through a survey but has received only two responses, neither of which support recognition. The Company believes that the lack of responses is due to employees not having any significant views on this matter”.

18)       Finally, when asked on 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 stated “N/A”.

5. The check of membership and support

19)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, (1) whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and (2) 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 and support 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, and a copy of the petition in support of recognition mentioned in its application.  It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the names of the employees and members within the bargaining unit and the petition signatories would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 11 February 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

20)       The information requested from the Employer was received on 12 February 2026 and from the Union on 16 February 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

21)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 42 workers. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 28 names.

22)       The Union also provided a petition, which contained 23 names/signatures. The Union also sent a link showing the text of the petition. The petition consisted of columns with the headings showing: Start time, Completion time, First Name, Surname, Job Title, What is your category within the company, Date of Birth and Postcode: The Petition was set out as follows:

“Petition For Recognition at IWS (M&E)

PETITION IN SUPPORT OF RECOGNITION AT: IWS (M&E) GREEN LANE, WALSALL   WS2 7PD

GMB trade union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the company and the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers in a “bargaining unit” support our application. If you do support us, please sign this petition.

I support recognition of GMB trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on my pay, hours and holidays. We will use your information to contact you in future to keep you updated on this campaign. Your information will be shared with the CAC, the independent body that oversees the statutory recognition process, but none of your personal information will be shared with your employer. You can unsubscribe or ask for your information to be deleted at any time. You can find more information at https://www.gmb.org.uk/legal-privacy”

23)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 26, a membership level of 61.90%. The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 23 workers. This represented 54.76% of the proposed bargaining unit. Twenty‑two signatories were members of the Union, which represented 52.38% of the proposed bargaining unit and one signatory that is 2.38% of the petition signatories, was a non-member. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially.

24)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 17 February 2026 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

25)       In an email dated 24 February 2026 the Union stated, “GMB’s position is that a clear majority of the bargaining unit are in the union, and we ask that the Panel grants our application on this basis so that pay talks can be conducted before a 1st April pay anniversary”.

26)       In an email dated 24 February 2026 the Employer stated, “We are writing to state that we do not believe that the petition results accurately reflect current views among the Company’s workforce as to recognition of GMB. Over Summer 2025, the Company carried out a consultation with its workforce regarding potential contractual changes. This related specifically to the group that has been proposed as the potential bargaining unit. The proposed changes were resisted by our workforce. Ultimately, the Company decided in September 2025 that it would not proceed with the changes. Understandably at that time, employees were concerned about the prospect of future proposals. We understand that it was around that time that GMB began their petition. We believe that the timing of the petition significantly impacted on our employees’ views on recognition, on the basis that there were higher than usual feelings of discomfort. We do not believe that such concerns are as prevalent now and consequently, we do not believe that GMB has the same level of support for recognition as it did when it carried out its petition, almost six months ago. Primarily, the Company has made considerable efforts to ensure there are positive relations with employees since September, and we believe that they would agree that there is a healthy dialogue between the Company and employees. On this basis, our understanding is that employee concerns have decreased and the feeling that collective representation was necessary has now quietened. Furthermore, upon receipt of GMB’s application, we sought to carry out our own survey. Although we received only a small number of responses, the informal feedback we received as an explanation of the low numbers was that the employees simply did not have a particular interest either way in whether or not GMB should be recognised. The survey itself does not demonstrate there to have been overwhelming support for GMB to be recognised, even at the time when employees were most likely to be in favour of recognition. The numbers demonstrate that not all GMB members were in favour of recognition and only one signatory was a non-member. Therefore, the vast majority of non-members are not in favour of recognition and GMB members were not convinced of its necessity. While we are aware of the relevant thresholds required for GMB to succeed in their application and the fact that overwhelming support is not necessary, the fact that the petition only produced a thin majority at a time when employees were more likely to be in favour of recognition means that there is a reasonable and credible view that GMB may no longer have the same level of support. Given the relatively close margins, there would not need to have been a significant movement in voting numbers for there to be a change in outcome. For these reasons, we are of the view that GMB’s petition is not a reliable source of evidence that there is sufficient support for recognition and invite the CAC to either reject GMB’s application or to hold its own ballot in order to obtain a reliable result upon which the CAC can base its decision.”

7. Considerations

27)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 above are satisfied. The Panel has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

28)       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 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)

29)       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 23 above showed that 61.90% 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)

30)       The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether 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. The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of 42 workers provided by the Employer indicated that 23 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 54.76%. The petition was signed by one non-member amounting to 2.38% of the total. Twenty-two workers in the proposed bargaining unit who had signed the petition and were union members was 52.38%. The wording on the petition is set out in paragraph 22 above.  The Panel believes the proposition in the petition is clear and unambiguous, referring to the specified Union being formally recognised for collective bargaining purposes, and would leave the signatory in no doubt what they were being asked to support.

31)        In the proposed bargaining unit, 61.90% of workers were union members, whilst 54.76% signed the union’s petition supporting recognition, including 2.38% of the workers who were not members of the Union. The Panel believes that the petition does not show weak support for recognition. Over 50% of the members of the proposed Bargaining Unit appear to support recognition. The fact that only one non-member signed the petition is not positive evidence that those who did not are against recognition.  It only reflects the views of those who signed, not the views of those who didn’t.

8. Decision

32)        The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. The application is therefore accepted.

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mrs Susan Jordan

Mr Nigel Cotgrove

04 March 2026