Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 14 October 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1598(2026)

13 October 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

Kimal PLC

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 10 August 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Kimal PLC (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “All employees on ‘A’ Shift, ‘B’ Shift , ‘Day Shift’ and ‘Night’ Shift.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Sherwood Road, Aston Fields, Bromsgrove, B60 3DR.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 11 August 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 17 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Deborah England and Ms Joanne Kaye. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Emma Bentley.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 24 August 2026. The acceptance period was extended on three further occasions in order 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 16 October 2026.

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 22 June 2026. The Union stated that the Employer had refused the request. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s response 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 “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 approximately 550. The Union stated that there were approximately 200 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 86 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 10 August 2026. The Union said it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

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

10)       The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 22 July 2026. The Employer said that it had responded to the initial letter on 24 July 2026 and refused the request. A copy of the Employer’s email of 24 July 2026 was attached to its response.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 10 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 416. The Employer said that there were 301 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer stated that it believed the reason for the difference was due to the bargaining unit covering all people who work at Bromsgrove, including Managerial, support functions and those with multi-site and hybrid work locations. 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, whether had it received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Additional comments from the parties

15)       On 26 August 2026 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Union inviting it to comment on two matters. First, the Union was asked to confirm whether the date of 22 June 2026 stated in its application as the date of its written request for recognition was a typographical error, as the Employer had stated it received the request on 22 July 2026. Secondly, the Union was asked to comment on the considerable discrepancy between the number of workers said to be in the proposed bargaining unit in its application, namely approximately 200 workers, and the figure of 301 workers given in the Employer’s response.

16)       In a letter dated 3 September 2026, the Union clarified that the date was a typographical error, and the accurate date was July. In relation to the discrepancy in the figures, the Union said that the proposed bargaining unit was based on research it had undertaken with its members and that it believed approximately 200 workers fell within its scope. The Union explained that this was why it had stated a figure of 200 workers rather than the Employer’s figure of 301 workers.

17)       It further stated that it believed there may be a discrepancy in what the Employer recognised as a ‘shift’. It explained that the proposed bargaining unit was based on workers employed on day, night, A and B shifts, where most team leaders and operatives were employed. It added that some workers worked compressed hours across designated shifts and that, if the Employer’s list included office-based workers, those workers would not ordinarily be described as shift workers.

18)       The Union indicated that it would be willing to represent all 301 workers identified by the Employer. It added that it would be prepared to include the Employer’s Worcester site within the scope of the application if the Employer’s concern related to multi-site workers. It maintained that it was well placed to represent different categories of workers.

19)       The Union said that the Employer had previously refused to meet with it regarding issues raised on behalf of its members and had not responded to earlier communications. It therefore expected that the Employer would not answer a request for numbers or any breakdown. The Union requested from the CAC a breakdown of the workers by job title and where they routinely worked. However, this was not information the CAC could provide.

20)       The Union also addressed the Employer’s comments on the job roles included in the bargaining unit. It said that the proposed bargaining unit reflected the wishes of its members and maintained that, if recognition were granted, it would work with the Employer to ensure appropriate representation across the workforce.

6. The membership check

21)       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 21 September 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

22)       The information requested from both parties was received by the CAC on 24 September 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

23)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 295 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 88 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 83, a membership level of 28.14%.

24)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 29 September 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 2 October 2026.

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

25)       In a letter to the CAC dated 2 October 2026 the Union highlighted that it satisfied the 10% membership requirement whether the bargaining unit comprised approximately 200 workers or the Employer’s proposed figure of almost 400 workers.

26)       The Union requested whether the CAC could identify the 5 workers not found on the Employer’s list. It stated that it was satisfied that the list it provided was accurate for the Bromsgrove site and offered to assist in confirming that those workers were employed at the site and fell within the proposed bargaining unit.

27)       It stated that its proposed bargaining unit included shift workers of ‘day’, ‘night’, ‘A’ and ‘B’. Following internal checks and consultation, the Union believed that a number of job roles listed in the membership report did not meet its definition of shift and provided a list of those roles.

28)       The Union maintained that approximately 200 workers were included within the bargaining unit and confirmed that most of its members fell under ‘operative’, ‘team leader’ or ‘cleaner’. It identified that roles listed in the membership report were different versions of the same job and concluded that the 5 workers not found on the Employer’s list could still fall within the bargaining unit under a different job title.

29)       In a letter to the CAC dated 1 October 2026 the Employer stated that it recognised and respected the CAC’s independent process for verifying membership evidence submitted by the Union. It considered it helpful to provide contextual information regarding recent Union activity within the proposed bargaining unit.

30)       The Employer said that during recent visits to the Bromsgrove and Worcester sites, the Union distributed a leaflet to employees which promoted a number of separate initiatives. It stated that the leaflet contained QR codes inviting employees to participate in a collective workplace grievance and to support a petition for trade union recognition. A copy of the leaflet was attached to the Employer’s email to the CAC dated 1 October 2026.

31)       The Employer noted what it considered to be a close correlation between the number of employees participating in the collective grievance and the membership figures reported as part of the application. Whilst making no allegation regarding the integrity of the Union’s records or the CAC’s verification process, it expressed concern that employees may not have fully understood the distinction between becoming a paid-up Union member, supporting statutory recognition and participating in a collective workplace grievance. The Employer requested that the Panel satisfy itself that current paid-up membership had been clearly distinguished from expressions of support for the recognition petition or the collective grievance.

8. Considerations

32)       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.

33)       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 of the Schedule is met.

Paragraph 36

34)       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%.

35)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 21-24 above) showed that 28.14% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (83 out of 295 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 22 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. For the avoidance of doubt, the Panel is also satisfied that paid-up membership was considered and accounted for, as opposed to mere expressions of support for the recognition petition or the collective grievance. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Ms Deborah England

Ms Joanne Kaye

13 October 2026