Acceptance Decision
Updated 13 May 2024
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2024
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-puma-uk/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1396(2024)
10 May 2024
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
PUMA UK
1. Introduction
1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 27 March 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by PUMA UK (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Warehouse Operatives employed at the Castleford Site.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Super G, Steamboat Way, Castleford, West Yorks, WF10 5XY.” The application was received by the CAC on 27 March 2024 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 April 2024 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 Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Rob Lummis, and Ms Claire Sullivan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 9 April 2024. The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions 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 10 May 2024.
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. Summary of the Union’s application
5) In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 9 January 2024. The Union stated that it received a formal response to its request on 16 January 2024, in which the Employer had said that it had considered the Union’s request, but it did not consider that union recognition “is necessary at this time”. A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s letter of 16 January 2024 were attached to its 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, “Application made under Schedule A1. PUMA response, do not consider that union recognition is necessary at this time”. 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 76. The Union said that there were 56 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 31 were members of the Union. When asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said, “Workplace petition enclosed”.
8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because it was its “Members request”. The Union had not responded to the question on whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware that covered any workers in the bargaining unit.
9) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union had not responded when asked for the date on which it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer.
4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application
10) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 10 January 2024. The Employer had responded by letter dated 16 January 2024. In this letter the Employer had stated that, “We have considered your request but do not consider union recognition is necessary at this time. Whilst we would like to thank you for your interest, we write to confirm that your request is declined, and we will not be entering into any agreements for recognition of GMB Trade Union at this time.” A copy of the Employer’s letter dated 16 January 2024 was attached to its response.
11) The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 16 February 2024. 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, nor did it now agree the proposed bargaining unit as it did not believe that there was sufficient union representation, and therefore it did not consider it necessary at this time.
12) When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”.
13) The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application. According to the Employer there were 17 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
14) When asked to give reasons if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it issued monthly premiums for 17 members only.
15) When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer said that the employees had always had access to the Union but had consistently chosen not to join. The Employer explained that PUMA UK was a certified Top Employer with best practice awards and had placed 6th and 7th in the UK over the past 2 consecutive years. The Employer said that its priority was to listen to its employees, to ensure good communication, equality and belonging.
16) Finally, the Employer answered “NA” when asked both 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 it had received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
5. The membership and support check
17) To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and 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 within the proposed bargaining unit and of the Union’s petition. 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) and a copy of its petition. 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 16 April 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.
18) The information requested from Union was received by the CAC on 18 April 2024, and from the Employer on 24 April 2024. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
19) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 55 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 30 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 30, a membership level of 54.55%.
20) The Union’s petition comprised of 5 A4 sheets and contained 46 names/signatures.
Each page was headed with the GMB’s logo and was set out as follows:
“PETITION FOR RECOGNITION - PUMA
We the undersigned wish to have GMB as the recognised Trade Union, for both recognition and collective bargaining.”
Beneath the proposition was a table with 3 columns headed: “DATE”, “NAME”, and “SIGNATURE”. The dates on the petition ranged between 15 and 20 March 2024.
21) The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 43 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 78.18% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of the 43 signatories, 28 were members of the Union (50.91%% of the bargaining unit) and 15 were non-members (27.27% of the bargaining unit).
22) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 25 April 2024 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by the close of business on 30 April 2024.
6. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check
23) In an email to the CAC dated 30 April 2024 the Union stated that it was pleased to see that that the GMB had clearly met the thresholds required.
24) No comments were received from the Employer.
7. Considerations
25) In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.
26) 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 11. 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 issue for the Panel to decide is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.
Paragraph 36(1)(a)
27) 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 proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17 - 19 above) showed that 54.55% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 above, 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 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.
Paragraph 36(1)(b)
28) Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that 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. For the reasons given in paragraph 27 above the level of membership of the Unions is 54.55%. 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. In this case the Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 78.18% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (43 out of 46 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraphs 20 - 21 above). Of those who had signed the petition 28 were Union members (50.91% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 15 were non-members (27.27% of the proposed bargaining unit).
29) On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, that 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, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.
8. Decision
30) For the reasons given in paragraphs 26 - 29 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair
Mr Robert Lummis
Ms Claire Sullivan
10 May 2024