Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 5 August 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1586(2026)

05 August 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

Natural Power Consultants Limited

1. Introduction

1)         The GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) on 10 July 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Natural Power (the Employer)^{[footnote 1]} for a bargaining unit comprising “Operation Controllers, Shift Team Leaders and Control Point Technicians.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “The Green House, Forrest Estate, Dalry, Castle Douglas DG7 3XS.” The CAC gave the parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 July 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 17 July 2026.

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 Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr John Rawling and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Medina Mia.

3)         The CAC Panel did not extend the acceptance period in this case.

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 April 2026. The Union stated that the Employer refused 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 250. The Union further stated that there were 33 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 19 were members of the Union.

8)         The Union stated that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. The Union further said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9)         The Union indicated 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 July 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 27 April 2026. The Employer said that it had refused the request.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 10 July 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 588. The Employer stated that there were 35 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and noted that ‘we do not know how the Union calculated their number.’ 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. Considerations

15)       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 the material submitted by the parties in reaching its decision.

16)       Specifically in respect of this application, in deciding whether to accept an application the Panel must be satisfied that it is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9. 

17)       Paragraph 4 of the Schedule states:

“4(1)   The union seeking recognition must make a request for recognition to the employer.

(2)    Paragraphs 5 to 9 apply to the request.”

18)   Paragraph 6 states:

“6. The request is not valid unless the union (or each of the unions) has a certificate under section 6 that it is independent.”

19)    The Panel notes that the original request for recognition dated 27 April 2026 asked the Employer to recognise ‘GMB Scotland Trade Union’. The application to the CAC, however, has been made by “the GMB”, and the copy of the Certificate of Independence submitted with its application, and upon which it relies, is in the name of “GMB”.

20)   The union which makes the application for recognition to the CAC must be the same union which made the request to the employer, and that union must be an independent trade union. In this case the Employer was asked to recognise “GMB Scotland Trade Union” which is not the union which has made the application to the CAC, and further that Union has not established that it is independent by providing a Certificate of Independence in its name. It follows that the application is not valid.

6. Decision

21)       For the reasons given above, the Panel is not satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule.  Accordingly, the application is not accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr John Rawling

Mr Matt Smith OBE

05 August 2026

---

1. The application identified the Employer as “Natural Power.” It appears that the correct legal name of the Employer is Natural Power Consultants Limited.  This name is shown on the Employer’s notepaper. ↩