Recognition Decision
Updated 18 December 2025
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2025
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-sentry-fire-safety-group-birmingham-ltd/recognition-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1482(2025)
17 December 2025
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION THAT THE UNION IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE RECOGNISED
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. Following this decision, the parties reached agreement that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate bargaining unit.
4) On 26 September 2025, the Panel, not being satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union, gave notice pursuant to paragraph 23(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (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 parties were advised that the Panel would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24, before arranging for the holding of the ballot. The notification period elapsed without the Union, or the Union and the Employer jointly, informing the CAC that they did not want the CAC to arrange for the holding of the ballot.
5) In a letter to the CAC Manager dated 30 September 2025 the Union stated that it would prefer a workplace ballot. In a letter to the Case Manager dated 1 October 2025 the Employer submitted that there should be a postal ballot. In a decision dated 22 October 2025 the Panel decided that the ballot should be a postal ballot.
6) The parties were able to reach agreement on access to workers during the balloting period and the CAC was notified accordingly.
2. The Ballot
7) On 5 November 2025 Mi-Voice was appointed as the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) to conduct the ballot and the parties were notified accordingly. The postal ballot papers were dispatched on 20 November 2025 to be returned to the QIP by no later than noon on 3 December 2025.
8) On 2 December 2025, following a late requested ballot paper and an issue concerning a change of address, the Parties were informed that the closing date of the ballot had been extended to noon on 8 December 2025.
9) The QIP reported to the CAC on 8 December 2025 that, of the 78 workers eligible to vote, twenty (20) ballot papers had been returned. Seventeen (17) workers (85% of the valid vote) had voted to support the proposal that the Union should be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer. Three (3) workers (15% of the valid vote) had voted to reject the proposal. The proportion of workers constituting the bargaining unit who supported the proposal was 21.79%.
10) The CAC informed the Employer and the Union on 9 December 2025 of the result of the ballot in accordance with paragraph 29(2) of the Schedule.
3. Declaration that the Union is not entitled to be recognised
11) The ballot did not establish that at least 40% of the workers constituting the bargaining unit supported the proposal that the Union should be recognised by the Employer for the purposes of conducting collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
12) In accordance with paragraph 29(4) of the Schedule, the CAC declares that the Union is not entitled to be recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
Panel
Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair
Ms Amanda Ashworth
Mr Nigel Cotgrove
17 December 2025