Validity Decision
Updated 7 October 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-john-pye-sons-ltd-2/validity-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1601(2026)
6 October 2026
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING
AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT
The Parties:
GMB
and
John Pye & 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) By a decision dated 21 September 2026 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Following this decision, the parties reached agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. The agreed bargaining unit was described as “Auction Porters, Auction Technicians and Team Leaders at the Bo’ness site. For the purposes of clarity this excludes agency workers, Data Wipe Technicians, Technical Team Leaders and Vehicles Auction Porters.”
2. Issues
4) As the agreed bargaining unit differs from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.
5) In a letter dated 30 September 2026 the parties were invited to make their submissions on the validity tests for consideration by the Panel.
3. Union’s comments on the validity tests
6) In an email to the Case Manager dated 5 October 2026 the Union made the following comments on the validity tests:
(a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “No.”
(b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? “Yes.”
(c) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? “No.”
(d) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? “No.”
4. Employer’s comments on the validity tests
7) In an email to the Case Manager dated 30 September 2026 the Employer made the following comments on the validity tests:
(a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? There is not an existing agreement.
(b) Is there at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of union membership within the new bargaining unit? Based on the previous checks, yes.
(c) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? No.
(d) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? Only from GMB themselves where it was withdrawn due to a certificate formality.
5. Conclusions
8) The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45(1) of the Schedule.
9) Under paragraph 45(1) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager on 7 September 2026 showed that 44.83% of the 29 workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. A further check was carried out on the agreed bargaining unit of 25 workers. This showed that 48% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union. Members of the Union therefore constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(1).
10) In the light of that, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid, and that the CAC shall proceed with the application.
Panel
Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair
Mr Alistair Paton
Mr Matt Smith OBE
6 October 2026