Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 21 September 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1601(2026)

21 September 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

John Pye and Sons

1. Introduction

1)       GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 13 August 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by John Pye and Sons (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Auctioneers, Forklift Drivers, Packers, Porters (all grades), Team Leaders and Technicians.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “John Pye and Sons, Carriden Industrial Estate, Bridgeness Road, Bo’ness, EH51 9SJ.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 14 August 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 19 August 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 Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 27 August 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 1 October 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.

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 27 July 2026. The Union stated that the Employer had refused the request. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s refusal letter 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 “yes.” The Union said that it had submitted an application to the CAC dated 22 July 2026. The Union said this application was withdrawn as the application and request made reference to GMB Scotland whereas the Union’s Certificate of Independence was for the GMB. 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 50 at Bo’ness. The Union stated that there were 29 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 21 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 13 August 2026. The Union said it consented to its contact details being forwarded to ACAS.

4. The Employer’s response

10)       The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 27 July 2026. The Employer said that it had responded by refusing the request.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 13 August 2026. The Employer stated that it had not, 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 not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.

12)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 582. The Employer said that there were 29 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer went on to say “our national headcount is 582. Our site in Bo’Ness employs 50 full-time workers currently. Although I would not have expected the management team (approx 6) to be included within the proposed BU, I do not know the reasoning as to why other roles have been excluded. It doesn’t appear that cleaning, administrative or first line management staff have been included. In addition, I would say that the local site management team have no autonomy and cannot independently negotiate pay, holidays or working hours. Workforce uniformity exists with terms and conditions set centrally, and policies are applied consistently across sites. Identical roles exist in Marchington, Chesterfield and Nottingham. A small, fragmented unit would potentially lead to different terms across our operational sites. This approach would be impractical.”

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 “no” 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 “no” when asked whether it had received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said it did not consent to its contact details being forwarded to ACAS.

5. The Union’s comments on the Employer’s response

15)       In an email dated 31 August 2026 the Union addressed the issues raised by the Employer regarding the proposed bargaining unit and the potential differences between Scottish and UK sites. The Union said:

“We have no objections to the bargaining unit being extended, if that is what the employer is proposing. Our letter dated 10th April and 27th July 2026 state that the job titles of those we have mentioned in this correspondence is not exhaustive. Given the hostility from the employer to a trade union presence at the Bo’ness site, there has been difficulty in gaining access to certain parts of the workforce. We are confident that if were given access to speak to staff, as specified by the employer, then support for an agreement with GMB Trade Union would be strong. As a demonstration of support for this position, we have a petition signed by a significant number of the workforce at the Bo’ness site.”

The Union went on to give details of an application it had made in relation to another Employer which it said had led to a recognition agreement that was working well.

6. The membership and support check

16)       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 1 September 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.

17)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 1 September 2026 and from the Employer on 3 September 2026.

18)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 29 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 19 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 13, a membership level of 44.83%.

19)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 7 September 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 11 September 2026.

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

20)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 8 September 2026 the Union stated “your records show that there are six GMB Union members that do not appear to be on the employer’s list. This can be attributed to our members paying their subscriptions by direct debit and will probably have left the employment of John Pye & Sons but continuing as members of our trade union. The employer states that they have fourteen agency workers which are not included on the employer’s list carrying out the role of Auction Porter. It is not our intention to have this group included in the bargaining unit. With the job titles that our members have provided to us, Auctioneers, Forklift Drivers and Packers are missing from the employer’s list.  We wish these titles to be enclosed within the Bargaining Unit. I also have a petition signed by our members and non-members, in support of GMB Union recognition at John Pye & Sons, Bo’ness, which can be produced when you deem it appropriate. Given the information submitted by GMB and the employer, we believe that our trade union membership level exceeds the threshold for our application to proceed.”

21)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 8 September 2026 the Employer said “we have the following job titles in Bo’ness:

• Auction Porter
• Auction Porter (Vehicles)
• Auction Technician
• Team Leader (Salesroom)
• Team Leader (Technical)
• Data Wipe Technician

We then have a further 14 agency workers who are Auction Porters. Most porters are trained to operate a forklift and all porters deal with packing. Our auctions are online so there is not a role of Auctioneer. If GMB are also representing Auction Porters classed as agency workers and want them to be part of the unit I can request their information and provide it.”

8. Considerations

22)       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.

23)       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 it was made in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criterion set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule is met.

24)       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%.

25)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 16-19 above) showed that 44.83% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (13 out of 29 workers) were members of the Union. 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 percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit required by paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Matt Smith OBE

21 September 2026