Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 22 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1482(2025)

22 October 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

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)         By a decision dated 15 August 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. In e-mails dated 16 September 2025 the parties confirmed that the appropriate bargaining unit in this matter was that originally proposed by the Union. 

4)         On 17 September 2025 the Case Manager wrote to the Union to ascertain whether they were claiming that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. In an e-mail dated 25 September 2025 the Union confirmed that they were not claiming majority membership in the bargaining unit.

5)         On 26 September 2025 the Panel, not being satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel also advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form the ballot should take.

6)         The notification period described in the preceding paragraph elapsed without the Union, or the Union and the Employer jointly, informing the CAC that a ballot was not required.

2. Issues to be determined

7)    The issue to be determined by the Panel is what form the ballot should take. In deciding the form of the ballot (workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must, under paragraph 25(5) of the Schedule, take into account the following matters:

(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace or workplaces;

(b) costs and practicality;

(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

Paragraph 25(6) of the Schedule states that the CAC may not decide that the ballot should be a combination of workplace and postal methods unless there are special factors making such a decision appropriate. Special factors include:

(a) factors arising from the location of workers or the nature of their employment;

(b) factors put to the CAC by the employer or the union.

3. Summary of the Union’s submissions on the form of ballot

8)         In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 30 September 2025 the Union said that its members were insisting on an on-site ballot. The Union therefore asked that the Panel were informed that this was how it wished to proceed.

4. Summary of the Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

9)         In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 1 October 2025 the Employer stated that it believed a postal ballot should be held in order to ensure that the process ran smoothly, fairly, and with the least disruption to its site operations. The Employer considered that a postal ballot “will best protect continuity of work, minimise disruption to our workforce, and ensure all eligible employees are able to participate confidentially.”

5. Considerations

10)       The Panel has carefully considered the parties’ submissions and has decided that, in this case, a postal ballot would be the most appropriate form of ballot. There are no submissions on the grounds of costs, but the Employer has made an argument as to the practicalities, that a postal ballot would help to ensure continuity of work, and that it would minimise disruption to its workforce.

6. Decision

11)       The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a postal ballot.

12)       The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Ms Amanda Ashworth

Mr Nigel Cotgrove

22 October 2025