Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 18 August 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1482(2025)

15 August 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

Sentry Fire Safety Group Birmingham Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 16 July 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Sentry Fire Safety Group Birmingham Ltd (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All hourly paid operations employees, all hourly paid support function employees, all hourly paid transport employees and all operations, support functions and transport supervisors.”  The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Moor Lane Industrial Estate, Perrywell Road,Witton, Birmingham B6 7AT, and, Unit 6, Tame bridge industrial estate, Perry Barr, Birmingham B42 2TX.” The application was received by the CAC on 16 July 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 17 July 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 23 July 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 Paul Swann, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Amanda Ashworth and Mr Nigel Cotgrove. 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 30 July 2025. The acceptance period was extended 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 15 August 2025.

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)         The Union had sent its initial its request for recognition to the Employer on 19 May 2025.  The Union said that it met with Employer on 19 June 2025, and that the Employer had formally withdrawn from talks on 10 July 2025. A copy of the Union’s request, and the Employer’s response dated 10 July 2025 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 “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 110.   The Union stated that there were 84 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 47 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 that 60 workers had signed a “petition for recognition”, and that evidence could be provided to the CAC on a confidential basis.       

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because it covered employees below the level of manager and it was therefore compatible with effective management and made industrial common sense. It was selected by members of the GMB Union, and it avoided the risk of small, fragmented bargaining units. It included those who worked in an operations role and those who supported the Operations Function on hourly paid contracts. The proposed bargaining unit covered employees based at one site. The Union said that 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 to confirm the date on which it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer.^{[footnote 1]}

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 19 May 2025. The Employer said that it had responded on 10 July 2025, “deciding not to grant voluntary recognition at that time”. A copy of the Employer’s letter dated 10 July 2025 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 July 2025. 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, and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit as it did not appear to represent all employees/workers in the business, outside of Senior Management.

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 disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application. The Employer said that it believed that the number was 92. The Employer further explained that there were 112 workers employed, of which 13 were temporary/agency workers, 7 were Managers, and 92 were employees in the bargaining unit.

14)       The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

15)       The Employer said that it was unable to disagree or confirm the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit.     

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 made the following points:

i. Lack of transparency around the petition process:

The first formal mention of any petition relating to union recognition was made verbally by the Union during the collective consultation process. Up to that point, no formal notification or documentation had been shared with the business to confirm the existence, timeframe, or structure of the petition.

ii. Timing and overlap with the business consultation:

It was implied during collective consultations that the petition had been open for over two months. However, this coincided with an ongoing business-wide consultation process regarding changes to the working week, during which employees were actively engaging with management and, in certain cases, reaching agreement on proposals. This overlap raised concerns that the petition may have been circulated at a time when employees were still processing material changes and may not have had full information or clarity on either matter.

iii. Lack of opportunity for review or retraction:

Given that the petition was not shared with the business and that no formal engagement on the union recognition request was made during the early stages of the process, there was no mechanism to verify the integrity of the petition process, nor whether any individuals who may have signed it under early assumptions had since changed their views. The absence of transparency on this point made it difficult to ascertain current support.

iv. Ongoing dialogue with employees:

The Employer had continued to receive positive engagement and constructive dialogue from many employees regarding business proposals, and several had already expressed agreement with changes being discussed more recently. This active engagement suggested a collaborative and responsive environment, which may not reflect a clear or widespread demand for union recognition at this time.

17)       The Employer answered “Not applicable” 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

18)       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 29 July 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

19)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 30 July 2025, and from the Employer on 1 August 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

20)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 92 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 44 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 42 a membership level of 45.65%. 

21)       The Union’s petition consisted of 5 A4 sheets and contained 60 names/signatures. The petition was headed with the GMB’s logo and was set out as follows:

“PETITION IN SUPPORT OF RECOGNITION

GMB trade union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers in the “bargaining unit” support our application. If you do support us, please sign this petition.

I support recognition of GMB trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays on behalf of all hourly paid operations employees, all hourly paid support function employees, all hourly paid transport employees and all operations, support functions and transport supervisors.”

Beneath the proposition was a table with 5 columns headed: “NAME”, “SIGNATURE”, “DATE OF BIRTH”, “POSTCODE”, and “DATE”. The dates on the petition ranged between 23 April 2025 and 29 April 2025.

22)       The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 59 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 64.13% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of the 59 signatories, 37 were members of the Union (40.22% of the bargaining unit) and 22 were non-members (23.91% of the bargaining unit). 

23)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check.

24)       No comments were received from the parties.   

6. 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. 

28)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 – 20 above) showed that 45.65% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 19 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)

29)       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.

30)       For the reasons given in paragraph 28 above the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 45.65%. 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 of the Union. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case.

As well as establishing that 45.65% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were union members, the Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of workers provided by the Employer indicated that 59 of the 60 petition signatories were identifiable as workers within the bargaining unit, a support level of 64.13%. Of those there were 37 union members (40.22%) and 22 non-members in the bargaining unit (23.91%).   

31)       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. 

7. Decision

32)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 26 – 31 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Ms Amanda Ashworth

Mr Nigel Cotgrove

15 August 2025              

---

1. See however paragraph 11 above. ↩