Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 18 July 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1470(2025)

17 July 2025

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

SeAH WIND LTD

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 23 May 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by SeAH WIND LTD (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “All hourly paid manual workers employed at SeAH Wind Ltd Teeside” based at SeAH Wind Ltd, South Bank, Teesworks Middlesbrough, Teesside, TS10 5QW .  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 23 May 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 2 June 2025 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, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Christopher Burrows.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

3)         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.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 9 June 2025.  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 17 July 2025.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 7 April 2025. The Union confirmed that the Employer responded on 17 April 2025 and declined Voluntary talks on Recognition.

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 200 and 134 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 101 were Union members.

8)         Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.  When called upon to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated, “Membership is provided in excess of the statutory requirement. Membership data can be provided to CAC on a confidential bases at a later date”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because “These are the members in areas GMB would represent up to and including supervisors”. The Union also confirmed that the proposed bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence, and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 23 May 2025.  

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 7 April 2025. The Employer stated it responded to the Union via a letter dated 17 April 2025 stating “Seah Wind Ltd does indeed value positive industrial relations and the voice of our workforce, and we do have various forums and mechanisms to facilitate this. However, at this stage our priority is to continue setting up the business, preparing it for the commencement of commercial production and then to employ many more new people. Therefore, we respectfully decline your request to engage in discussions towards a voluntary recognition agreement with GMB Union”.

12)       When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form, the Employer stated this was 23 May 2025. The Employer when asked if it agreed with the proposed bargaining unit confirmed that it neither agreed nor disagreed on the proposed bargaining unit.

13)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No”.When asked to state the number of workers employed by the Employer it confirmed “ Approximately 1057 workers, 307 of which are directly employed by us on an employment basis, and approximately 750 of which are workers employed for the construction of our facility”.

14)       When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application the Employer answered, “No”. When asked the reasons for any difference, the Employer stated, “Of 307 workers employed by us on an employment basis, 213 workers are hourly paid manual workers. In addition, approximately 750 workers are indirectly employed by us via trade contracts for construction works, and 700 of those 750 workers our hourly paid manual workers. In total, approximately 913 hourly paid manual workers are currently working on our site (under construction)”.

15)       The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “ We are not aware of which employees or workers who may or may not be members of the Union”.

16)       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 stated, “We do not consider that the union would have obtained the support of a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit”.

17)       Finally, the Employer stated “None” when asked it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit.   Asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered, “N/A”.

5. Additional comments from the parties

18)       The Case Manager cross copied the Employer response to the Union on 2 June 2025 and its comments were invited.

19)       The Union in an email dated 3 June 2025 stated “On the date of the application 134 workers described in the bargaining unit were employed at the site on Teesworks, Teesside described as the site we are seeking recognition. The company has stated 213 employees which we believe is falsely inflating the numbers by including apprentices and trainees currently in college and not working on the site where the effected group are based. Membership now sits at 103 members”.

20)       The Union’s email of 3 June 2025 was cross copied to the Employer and its comments invited. In an email dated 4 June 2025 , the Employer responded by stating “I am somewhat confused and concerned by the Unions [Sic] claim that we have falsely inflated our numbers.  This is simply not the case. In the Union’s letter to us, dated 7 April 2025, they defined their proposed bargaining unit as ‘The GMB seeks recognition to represent the category of hourly paid manual workers employed by SeAH Wind Ltd Teesside for the purpose of collective bargaining’.  In their application to the CAC, dated 23 May 2025, the Union defined the proposed bargaining unit as ‘All hourly paid manual workers employed at SeAH Wind Ltd Teesside’. The number of employees we have provided, 213, encompasses all hourly paid, employed and manual workers of SeAH Wind.  For the avoidance of doubt, our apprentices are all directly employed by SeAH Wind Ltd, are paid hourly and by nature of their roles are manual workers (Welders, Platers and Maintenance Technicians).  With regards to any trainees, we do have a number of employees who are considered ‘Trainees’ however they are also directly employed by us, paid hourly, are working in manual roles (Welders) however they are based on site only and not at college as the Union falsely claim. We are therefore resolute in the fact that, applying either of the Union’s definitions of ‘….hourly paid manual workers employed by SeAH Wind Ltd Teesside’ or ‘All hourly paid manual workers employed at SeAH Wind Ltd Teesside’ the number we have supplied of 213 is both truthful and accurate”.

21)       The Panel chair directed that the Employers email of 4 June 2025, was to be cross copied to the Union and comments invited. The Union, by way of comment, sent an email dated 4 June 2025 stating “The location of the bargaining unit states SeAH wind Ltd Teesworks, Middlesbrough, Teesside. Not all 213 workers are currently working at the site and as such workers based at different sites should be discounted. The disparity undermines the principle of a homogenous bargaining unit. Any apprentices offsite in education are under supervision of educational staff not workplace managers. Workers at different sites typically report to separate site managers or departments. If any are at other sites they may not interact with workers at the stated site, participate in the same meetings or even share the same working culture. The CAC has consistently ruled the geographic separation differences in job function and distinct managerial oversight are valid reasons to exclude groups if the unit is not compatible with effective management. For purposes of fair and effective bargaining only workers who share the same location supervision and working conditions should be included in the bargaining unit. Apprentices at college or workers at other locations do not meet these criteria”.

22)       The Panel Chair directed that the Union’s email be acknowledged and cross copied to the Employer with a covering letter to both parties stating that no further comments were needed.

6. The check of membership and support

23)       To assist 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.  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 full names and 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 5 June 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

24)       The information requested was received by the CAC from the Union on 6 June 2025 and from the Employer on 10 June 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

25)       The Employer provided two spreadsheets listed as List A and List B. In the covering email, List A was described as “All hourly paid manual workers working at SeAH Wind Ltd. at the Teesworks site.  It included details of four Apprentices (identified on the sheet by job title) who were based on the Teesworks site and under the full direct supervision of Supervisors and Management.  These were 2nd Year Apprentices (two Platers and two Maintenance Technicians) who were hourly paid, manual workers directly employed by the Employer.  They spent four days per week on site, with just one day per week on day release at Hartlepool college of further Education as part of their apprenticeship program.  Further, the Employer had discounted recent leavers; hence the total number of workers was slightly lower than the figure stated in its Response to the application submitted on 2 June 2025.

26)       List B was described as containing all of the remaining Apprentices, directly employed by the Employer.  These individuals were hourly paid, manual workers and were under direct supervision and management.  All attendance matters and performance reviews were managed directly by the Employer and not the college. They did however currently attend college five days per week in Teesside based colleges local to the site.  Some of these individuals were 2nd year Apprentices who were due for deployment to the Teesworks site in September 2024.  Due to the current status of construction and commissioning of the factory, these particular Apprentices (who were all Welders) had to remain at college because commercial production activities had not yet started.  Had the factory been ready as planned, these particular Apprentices would have been deployed to the site in September 2024.

27)       The Panel Chair was consulted regarding the two lists sent by the Employer.  He directed that only List A be used for the purpose of the check.

28)       List A supplied by the Employer showed that there were 179 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The information provided for each worker was ‘Employee Information/First Name’, ‘Employee Information/Last Name’ and Date of Birth. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 109 names.  The check that was undertaken was a comparison of the names on List A with the membership list as provided by the Union. 

29)       According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 108, a membership level of 60.34%.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 11 June 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

7. Parties’ comments on the membership check

30)       The Union in its response dated 11 June 2025 stated, “….The check confirms that 108 of the 179 workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of GMB, representing 60.34% of the bargaining unit. This clearly satisfies the statutory requirement that union members constitute at least 10% of the bargaining unit. 2. Paragraph 36(1)(b): Given that over 60% of workers are active GMB members, we believe it is clear that a majority of the bargaining unit is likely to favour recognition of the union for collective bargaining purposes. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that the application meets the statutory requirements for admissibility under paragraph 36 of Schedule A1 and should proceed to the next stage of consideration.

31)       In its response dated 3 July 2025, the Employer stated:

1. “Do members of the union constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit? The relevant bargaining unit proposed by the Union is “hourly paid manual workers employed at SeAH Wind”. At this stage, SeAH Wind is not yet fully operational.  Our position is that this bargaining unit cannot possibly exist until SeAH Wind has commenced commercial production and employees have been deployed onto an operational production line (which does not exist yet).  We therefore reserve our right to make full submissions on the appropriateness of the union’s proposed bargaining unit at the relevant time. Nevertheless, we do accept that at the current time, the number of Union members within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit (101) constitutes at least 10 per cent of the total number of workers within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. We have however identified several concerns regarding the accuracy and legitimacy of the stated Union memberships within our workforce, and we look forward to having the opportunity to make representations in this regard at the relevant stage of this process.

2. Would a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit? No – it cannot be said that this is the case.  We refer the CAC to a “Collective Grievance Letter” we received dated 10 June 2025 (enclosed) which only includes 40 signatures of Union members, in support of that grievance.  Although we accept the collective grievance related to a particular issue, that issue was directly relevant to the GMB’s request for recognition.  At the very least this is indicative of the fact that the signatories in support do not represent a majority of the workers constituting the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  We therefore have reasonable grounds to argue that fewer than a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, at this time, support recognition of the Union or collective bargaining. Furthermore, the CAC should be aware that SeAH Wind is currently in the early stages of its development, with significant construction activities under CDM regulations still underway. Our growth trajectory indicates that we will have a substantially larger workforce within the coming months and years. Once fully operational, expected by the end of 2027, SeAH Wind expects to directly employ up to 796 people (this figure is subject to adjustment as we become operational and understand our business). To demonstrate the fluidity of our volume recruitment processes:

•           A further 6 individuals have commenced employment, and 4 leavers, since the date of our initial response (17 June 2025).  At the date of this email, we now have 318 employees.

•           We have 9 individuals due to commence and a further 176 individuals who have been interviewed by SeAH Wind, have passed the first stage of our recruitment process and are to be offered employment with SeAH Wind as soon we are ready to welcome them to our factory.

•           We are continuously revising our hiring plan to match the state of readiness of our factory.

 Whether the majority of workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would favour recognition of the Union cannot reasonably be determined until SeAH Wind has completed its volume recruitment processes and achieved commercial production at full capacity, projected in 2027”.

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 above are satisfied.  The Panel has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

33)       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 issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met. 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

34)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 29 above showed that 60.34% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed 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)

35)       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.

36)       In arriving at its decision, the Panel has considered the Employer’s representations in regard to the changes that had already taken place in respect of the number of workers within the proposed bargaining unit (See Paragraph 31) with six having joined the bargaining unit and four having departed since it had completed its response to the application.  There were more planned changes with nine workers were due to commence employment and 176 individuals were to be offered employment.  The Employer submitted that it would have a substantially larger workforce within the coming months and years adding that when fully operational, expected by the end of 2027, it expected to directly employ up to 796 people.  However, the Panel accepts that by its very nature, a bargaining unit will grow and shrink over time as existing workers leave, and new workers join but when considering the application of the statutory tests it must consider how matters stand at the moment in time it makes its decision.  The Panel cannot make a decision based on what may or may not happen within an undertaking in a months or two years’ time.   The Panel also notes that the Employer refers to a collective grievance letter as evidence that it is not likely that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit favour recognition of the Union.  However, the Panel takes the view that a grievance letter raised following the imposition of a pay award cannot be taken as evidence of the workers desire or otherwise for collective bargaining.

37)       The Panel notes from the membership check that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (60.34%) are members of the Union.  In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf. 

38)       On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Christopher Burrows

17 July 2025