Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 24 July 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1471(2025)

23 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 & Unite the Union

and

3663 Transport Ltd (subsidiary of BFS Group Ltd t/a Bidfood)

1. Introduction

1)         GMB and Unite the Union (the Unions) submitted an application to the CAC dated 30 May 2025 that they should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by 3663 Transport Ltd (subsidiary of BFS Group Ltd t/a Bidfood) (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising: 

“Employees employed by 3663 Transport Limited (a subsidiary of BFS Group Limited) who were covered under the previous collective bargaining arrangements with Unite and the GMB which terminated with effect from 17 January 2025. These employees are employees undertaking hourly paid transport roles across all Bidford (BFS Group Limited) depots across the UK including depots branded as Oliver Kay depots. Unite and GMB collectively bargained for these employees up until 17 January 2025.

Their job titles include, but are not limited to, roles such as: Multi Drop Driver, Van Driver, Trunker / Shunter, Debriefer, Transport Coordinator, Transport Administrator, Route Planner, Transport Operative, Driver Trainer, C1 Driver, Trainee LGV Driver and Driver Assistants.

For the avoidance of doubt the bargaining unit does not cover those employed in hourly paid warehouse roles at BFS Group Limited for whom a separate recognition application will be pursued.”

The location of the bargaining unit was described as, “The bargaining unit is spread across all BFS Group (Bidfood) depots across the UK including those branded as Oliver Kay depots. This totals 26 depots.”  The application was received by the CAC on 30 May 2025, 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 on 6 June 2025 which was copied to the Unions.

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, and Ms Julia Buck, and Ms Joanne Kaye.  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 13 June 2025.  The acceptance period was extended on two occasions in order 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 obtain further information before arriving at a decision.  The final extension ends the acceptance period on 23 July 2025.

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.

2. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In their application to the CAC the Unions stated that they had sent their request for recognition on 12 May 2025.   On 27 May 2025 the Employer responded to the Unions, rejecting their request.  A copy of the Unions’ request letter, and the Employer’s letter of 27 May 2025 were attached to its application.   The Unions had also attached to their application an earlier request letter dated 10 April 2025 and subsequent e-mails that followed.  The Unions explained that a number of queries were raised following its earlier request, and, therefore, a further request was sent to the Employer to provide clarity on its proposed bargaining unit.

6)         When asked whether the Unions had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Unions answered “No”. The Unions 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 Unions said that it was a joint application and explained that the GMB and Unite had worked together to jointly collectively bargain with the Employer for approximately 30 years, until both unions were de-recognised on the 17 January 2025. During this period of joint bargaining, the Unions had worked constructively together for the benefit of its members and the business.

8)         The Unions stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer, as of the 2024 accounts, was 2040.  According to the Unions, there were 1800 workers in their proposed bargaining unit.  The Unions said that this figure was based on data provided by the Employer last year, and that it believed the number was over inflated.  When asked to state the number of union members in their proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Unions said that membership data and a petition would be provided to the CAC.         

9)         The Unions explained that the reason for selecting their proposed bargaining unit was because it represented a group of workers whose terms, conditions and pay structure were the same. Their pay and conditions had been collectively negotiated for over 30 years by both trade unions and their roles made up a distinct group i.e. those who provided transport services to the Bidfood operation.  The Unions said that “the Employer consistently refers to CBU and non CBU roles with non CBU roles referring to administrative and customer service based roles.”  The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.   

10)       When asked whether there was an existing recognition agreement of which they were aware that covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Unions answered “No”, further adding that the Unions held a voluntary agreement with the Employer for over 30 years until it was de-recognised on 17 January 2025, with no notice or opportunity for discussion.

11)       The Unions confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence.   The Unions stated that they had copied their application and supporting documents to the Employer on 30 May 2025. 

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

12)       In its response to the Unions’ application the Employer stated that it had received the Unions’ written request for recognition on 12 May 2025.   The Employer responded to the Unions’ request on 27 May 2025, stating its concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the proposed bargaining unit and challenged the continued failure to provide any supporting evidence regarding membership and employee support. In particular, the Employer had expressed concerns about the reliability of the petitions referred to in the Unions’ request.   A copy of the Employer’s letter of 27 May 2025 was attached to its response.  The Employer had also enclosed a copy of the Unions’ earlier request letter dated 10 April 2025, and subsequent e-mails exchanged between the parties.

13)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 30 May 2025.  The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Unions, nor did it agree with the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer explained that its objections to the Union’s proposed bargaining unit were as follows:

• The proposed bargaining unit was described as applying to all employees employed by 3663 Transport Ltd “undertaking hourly paid transport roles”. There were no hourly paid roles in 3663 Transport Ltd.

• The job titles of the roles falling within the proposed bargaining unit were stated to “include but are not limited to” those listed in the request. It was not, therefore, possible to ascertain which other roles were included in the proposed bargaining unit beyond those listed.

• The proposed bargaining unit referred to employees of 3663 Transport Ltd who “work a 45 hour a week contract plus overtime”. Not all of the employees of 3663 Transport Ltd who performed the roles listed in the Unions’ request worked a 45 hour week contract. By contrast, other employees of 3663 Transport Ltd who performed roles not included in the request, worked a 45 hour a week contract.

• The request stated that “shift premiums are calculated based on a percentage of hourly pay”. The majority of the roles listed in the request did not attract shift premiums.

14)       The Employer said that for the reasons it had submitted the proposed bargaining unit was unclear and that it was unable to readily identify which posts were covered.   When asked whether following receipt of the Unions’ request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”.  

15)       In answer to the question as to whether it wished to put forward a case that the Unions would not cooperate with each other, the Employer made the following points:

i. In the Unions’ application they referred only to a statement of working together in the past.

ii. The Unions request for recognition was stated to be “on behalf of GMB Trade Union and Unite the Union” but Unite the Union was not a signatory to the request.  All material correspondence appeared to have been drafted, signed and submitted solely by the GMB. Similarly, there was nothing to suggest that Unite the Union had been involved in the completion of the CAC Application Form nor its submission, other than its inclusion as a copied addressee in the email sent to the CAC by the GMB on 30 May 2025.

iii. At no point had the Employer been contacted by or had any dealings with Unite the Union in relation to this application.

16)       The Employer believed that the above points had not conveyed an impression of co-operation between the GMB and Unite the Union in relation to this application, nor of likely future co-operation.  The Employer said that based its past and recent experience working with the GMB and Unite the Union under a joint voluntary recognition arrangement, it had concerns regarding the ability of both Unions to effectively co-operate.  The Employer said that further examples included: Lack of Coordination and Communication, Protracted Negotiations and Disagreements, Non-attendance of the Unite National Officer at the Health and Safety Forum Engagement meetings, and Lack of Unified Approach and Trust.  The Employer said that its past experience was not of a strong and cohesive working relationship between the GMB and Unite the Union.

17)       The Employer submitted that the total number of workers it employed, as of 2 June 2025, was 2048.  The Employer disagreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Unions’ application, as it was unable to ascertain the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer further stated that the number of workers in the roles listed within the request was 1881, and that this was marginally different to the number stated in the application.

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

19)       When asked whether it disagreed with the Unions’ estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer reiterated its point that it was unable to ascertain the scope of the proposed bargaining unit.   Furthermore, no estimate of union membership had been provided, despite the Unions being invited to do so.    The Employer said that the Unions’ request stated that supporting evidence would be shared as part of the CAC process but, at the time of submitting its response to the application, no such evidence had been received.   The Employer requested that an independent check be conducted by the CAC.

20)       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 explained that it was made aware of the petition on 30 January 2025, 13 days after the announcement of the cessation of its voluntary recognition arrangement on 17 January. This coincided with significant speculation and a strong union narrative which included suggestions that the Employer was preparing to implement a fire and rehire strategy. The Employer had no such strategy.  Nevertheless, understandably, this narrative caused concern amongst the workers.  The Employer said that it therefore believed that this had likely influenced decisions to sign the petition in support of union recognition.  No copy of the petition, or any other petition had been provided by the Unions.

21)       The Employer said that since then, it had become clear to the workers that it had no plan to implement a fire and rehire strategy. In addition, it had recently received positive feedback from members of its workforce regarding its announcement in April 2025 of its annual pay award, with worker appreciation being shown for the speed and efficiency of the 2025 pay process compared with preceding years.   The Employer said that to further stabilise employee relations and promote open, direct communication, it had taken a number of proactive engagement measures, including:

1) Establishing an employee council to ensure direct and representative employee engagement. As part of this, representatives of the Employer’s workers had been appointed to the National Health and Safety Forum and appointed to the National Health and Safety Forum.

2) Holding eight Regional Engagement meetings in the first half of 2025, with attendees including workers employed by the Employer.

3) Recent engagement initiatives included the creation of a local engagement fund to support site-level employee activities, and proposed updates to the staff uniform design in response to workforce feedback.

4) Conducting a pay survey to gather feedback on compensation and demonstrate a commitment to fairness.

5) Providing clear and repeated reassurances that there are no plans to change existing terms and conditions.

22)       The Employer submitted that in light of these factors, it believed that worker sentiment had shifted significantly since January, and that the level of any support for union recognition may now be substantially lower.

23)       The Employer also had concerns about the reliability of the petitions referred to by the Unions.  The Employer explained that the petition was circulated via a QR code, that could be scanned and signed by anyone, and hosted on an open-access online platform with no apparent validation or verification process to confirm the signatories were current workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

24)       The Employer said that it had evidence that individuals not employed by the Employer were approached to sign.   In addition, some workers said that they felt pressured to sign the petition with some suggesting to the Employer that signing was a prerequisite for returning to the depot or being allowed to go out on route. For example, one of the workers expressed concern that a Union representative had blocked the depot gates and stood in front of his car – behaviour he described as “confrontational and dangerous”. In other examples, workers said that they felt “intimidated” by representatives, and some had described representatives as “aggressive”.

25)       The Employer believed that these factors raised serious questions about the reliability and validity of the petition as an accurate measure of current majority support for recognition within the proposed bargaining unit.

26)       Finally, the Employer answered “No” when asked both whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Unions 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.

4. The membership and support check

27)       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 unions (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the unions 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 Unions’ 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 Unions 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 their 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 12 June 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

28)       The information requested from the Unions was received by the CAC on 16 June 2025, and from the Employer on 18 June 2025.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

29)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 1899 workers in the Unions’ proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Unions contained 623 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 541, a membership level of 28.49%. 

30)       The Unions also provided the results of a petition in the form of a spreadsheet which consisted of 6 columns headed, “Name”, “Job Title”, “Bidfood depot you work from”, “Date”, “Mobile number”, and “E-mail Address”. There were 897 typed entries on the spreadsheet.

31)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 1 July 2025 the Union clarified that the petition link / QR code was initially shared directly with GMB members via text message and email on the 28 January 2025.   However, due to the Employer de-recognising the unions with no notice or agreement to go to Acas for conciliation, the Union was unable to access workplaces to share directly with workers in the proposed bargaining unit.   The Union therefore undertook a process of standing outside depots attempting to talk to workers as they were leaving or arriving.   For this exercise it primarily used the paper petition, and entries from the paper petition were input into the Microsoft forms by GMB staff.   Entries were validated either because they had been collected directly from workers at the depots and / or through ensuring a full name, depot name, job title and, where possible, contact details were provided.  The petition was set out as follows:

“Petition to support Union Recognition: 3663 Transport Ltd (Bidfood)

ONLY SIGN THIS PETITON IF YOU WORK IN BIDFOODS TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

YOUR NAME WILL NOT BE SHARED WITH YOUR EMPLOYER AND YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A GMB OR UNITE MEMBER TO SIGN THIS PEITION - JUST DON’T LET BIDFOOD TAKE AWAY YOUR VOICE OR YOUR CHOICE TO BE REPRESENTED.

We, the undersigned employees of 3663 Transport Ltd are calling for the formal recognition of GMB Trade Union and Unite the Union as our joint representatives for collective bargaining purposes.

(The proposed bargaining unit is for employees employed by 3663 Transport Ltd who were covered under the previous collective bargaining arrangements with Unite and the GMB which were terminated with effect from the 17th January 2025.  For the avoidance of doubt it does not cover those employed at BFS Group Ltd for whom a separate recognition application is being pursued.)”

32)       The check of the Unions’ petition showed that it had been signed by 763 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 40.18% of the proposed bargaining unit.  Of the 763 signatories, 418 were members of the Unions (22.01% of the bargaining unit) and 345 were non-members (18.17% of the bargaining unit). 

33)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 1 July 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by the close of business on 4 July 2025.

5. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

34)       In an email to the CAC dated 4 July 2025 the Employer said that in regard to the first test, it believed that the spreadsheet provided by Unite the Union provided the details of 155 members in the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer maintained that this number, if taken separately from what it believed was the GMB membership number, fell below the 10% threshold. The Employer again raised its concerns on the validity of the joint basis on which the application was purportedly made, reiterating its points in paragraph 15 above. In addition, it stated that that the clarification provided on the petition link/QR code, referred to in CAC’s Report, only seemed to relate to the GMB, and that at no point was the Employer contacted by, or had any dealings with Unite the Union in relation to the application. 

35)       It was the Employer’s view that the application was not in reality a joint application.  The Employer believed that the membership levels of Unite the Union and the GMB should therefore be considered separately, and, consequently, the membership levels of Unite the Union would not satisfy the test set out in paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

36)       In relation to the second test the Employer submitted that the report showed a percentage of 40.18% and, therefore, a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would not be likely to favour recognition of the unions as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the proposed bargaining unit.

37)       The Employer reiterated its concerns regarding the reliability of the petitions.  The Employer said that it could see nothing to prevent an individual from signing the petition on a number of different occasions using different names of workers in the bargaining unit, and that the confirmation in within the Report that names/signatures were duplicated on the petition only added to those concerns.  If any of those concerns were justified, the percentage of 40.18% would reduce, and result in the test being less likely satisfied.  The Employer maintained that, in contrast, the accuracy of the worker data that it had provided would be verified.

38)       The Employer said that it had noted that the petition was open for over 4 months before the application was made to the CAC.  The number of names/signatures on the petitions totalled 897.  The recognition application to the CAC, dated 30 May 2025, referred to the number of workers in the bargaining unit as 1800.   It was the Employer’s view that this meant that according to the unions own data, the petition names/signatures amounted to under 50% of the proposed bargaining unit.  However, in the Unions’ email to the Employer of 12 May 2025, which the Employer believed was before some of the 897 names/signatures were received, the GMB had stated “we are willing to confirm…that we do have a majority of workers in the bargaining unit…who favour union recognition”.  The Employer argued that this appeared to be a false statement at that time, and also at the time of the recognition application to the CAC, and that this further added to its concerns about the accuracy of the assertions made by the unions in connection with the application.

39)       In a letter dated 4 July 2025 the Unions submitted that it believed the report showed that it had comfortably exceeded the 10% threshold, with a level of union membership at 28.49%. Commenting on the second test the Unions said that there was a strong precedent to support the fact that the test was in relation to the hypothetical question that if the matter were to proceed to a statutory ballot, a majority would be likely to favour recognition, the Employer sighting CAC decisions; Amicus and Paddock Fabrications Ltd  (TUR1/378/2004, 13 July 2004), and, Amicus and Baker Oil Tools (TUR1/446/2005, 16 May 2005).   Therefore, on that basis if a Union enjoys near-majority level of support, it was a well-known fact that there is a ‘bandwagon’ effect.  In other words, the proposed and imminent recognition of the union would of itself generate additional support for the union. As matters stand there was a total of 46.66% of workers in the bargaining unit (of 1,899 workers) who were either (i) current members of GMB or Unite (541 workers), or (ii) non-members of GMB or Unite but signatories of the Unions’ petition (345 workers). The Unions maintained that that this was strong support that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the unions as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the proposed bargaining unit when taken into account the “bandwagon effect”.   The Unions submitted that this was further supported by the following:

(a) Out of the 763 signatories to the petition, 345 or 18.17% were non-members of the Unions. This demonstrated that support for recognition extended well beyond existing union membership.

(b) Union membership remained high despite the Employer’s unilateral decision on 17 January 2025 to de-recognise the Unions without engaging in Acas or providing the Unions with any notice of their intention. Following de-recognition, the Unions were denied access to workplace premises with immediate effect, meaning officials could not meet workers or conduct organising activity within depots. In addition, its union representatives were denied all right to facility time to organise with immediate effect.

(c) Despite the lack of access to workplace premises and facility time, support amongst non-members of the Unions was high. The Unions engaged workers directly outside depots to show their support by signing the petition and shared the petition via a QR code.

40)       The Unions believed that the level of support for recognition achieved without access to workplaces and notwithstanding the hostile act of unilaterally derecognising the Unions without any reasoned justification was strong evidence that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the unions as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the proposed bargaining unit.

41)       The Unions said that they categorically denied that any workers were pressurised into signing the petition and they would not accept any such conduct from their representatives.

42)       The Unions believed that its description the proposed bargaining unit was sufficiently clear for the CAC and the Employer to be able to readily identify which posts were covered and which were not, and that it was clear from the correspondence that preceded the application and from the application itself, that the Unions had been as precise as it possibly could in providing a workable definition.   The Unions asserted that it should be borne in mind the Unions were simply looking to replicate their previous bargaining unit with this Employer, which ended earlier this year. It was therefore respectfully submitted that the Employer’s assertions that the unit was incapable of identification were unfounded.

43)       Finally, addressing the Employer’s point concerning the joint application, the Unions said that there was no requirement for both unions to be signatories on such application (UCATT & Unite and Hillhouse Quarry Co (TUR1/735/10, 16 December 2010), CAC).  The Unions had demonstratively shown that they were willing and able to co-operate with one another, as both unions were recognised by the employer between 23 January 2001 and 17 January 2025.

44)       During this time, the Unions had agreed a pay deal for its members every year, they had worked to improve health and safety and worked together to agree the biggest change in terms and conditions within Bidfood in 24 years.    The Unions submitted that in order to put this matter beyond doubt, it had attached an undertaking signed by the Unions, that made it clear that both GMB and Unite were willing and able to co-operate in a manner which was likely to secure stable and effective collective bargaining arrangements.  It was signed by both the GMB and Unite the Union and set out as follows: “Undertaking to the Central Arbitration Committee GMB and Unite the Union provide this undertaking to the CAC pursuant to section 37 (2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to confirm the following:

(1) We will cooperate with one another in a manner likely to secure and maintain stable and effective collective bargaining arrangements, and

(2) If the employer wishes, we will enter into arrangements under which collective bargaining is conducted by the unions acting together on behalf of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit.”

45)       In a further e-mail dated 8 July 2025, the Unions stated that it wished make a late submission as a point of clarification concerning the dates for the petition.  The Union explained that the GMB and Unite had launched the petition on the 28 January. The Employer has suggested, in correspondence, that the situation since launching the petition had ‘changed’. This was purely anecdotal.   The Unions’ said that it felt it important to clarify the point that although its petition was launched on the 28 January, it had continued collecting petition signatures right up until the point of submitting the data to the CAC on 16 June. 

6. Considerations

46)       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.

47)       The Panel is satisfied that the Unions 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. The request was made in writing and identified the Unions, the proposed bargaining unit and that the request was made under the Schedule.  Further, there is no requirement in the Schedule that, in the case of a joint application, the unions must make separate applications nor was it a requirement that both unions sign the initial request and so such a failure would not render the request invalid. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 38 to 42 of the Schedule.  The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1) and paragraph 37, are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

48)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union (or unions) constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. 

49)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 29 – 29 above) showed that 28.49% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Unions. As stated in paragraph 28 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 notes the Employer’s comments that the membership levels of the Unions should be considered separately.  However, paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule, only states that members of the union (or unions) constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, it does not state that each separate union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Unions 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)

50)       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 (or unions) as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

51)       For the reasons given in paragraph 49 above the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 28.49%. 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.

52)       As well as establishing that 28.49% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were union members, the Case Manager’s check of the Unions’ petition against the list of workers provided by the Employer indicated that 763 of the 897 petition signatories were identifiable as workers within the bargaining unit, a support level of 40.18%. Of those there were 418 union members (22.01%) and 345 were non-members in the bargaining unit (18.17%).   The Panel considers that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining (28.49%), as would non-union members who signed the petition (18.17%), giving a total of 46.66% support for recognition.  The Panel considered carefully the Employer’s submission concerning the reliability of the Unions’ petition.  However, the Panel has not been presented with any cogent evidence to undermine the reliability of the petition.  Furthermore, the system of membership and support checks employed to determine whether the admissibility tests in paragraph 36 are satisfied relies on the good faith and honesty of both parties in supplying information. The Panel has no evidence which leads it to suspect that either party has not acted honestly and in good faith in relation to this application.

53)       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. 

Paragraph 37

54)       Paragraph 37 of the Schedule provides that, for an application to be admissible, the CAC must be satisfied that the unions show that they will co-operate with each other in a manner likely to secure and maintain stable and effective collective bargaining arrangements and that, if the employer wishes, the unions will show that they will enter into arrangements under which collective bargaining is conducted by the unions acting together on behalf of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.   In their application to the CAC the Unions had explained that they had worked together to jointly collectively bargain the Employer for approximately 30 years until both unions were de-recognised on 17 January 2025, and that during the period of joint bargaining they had worked constructively together for the benefit of its members and the business.  On 4 July 2025 the parties also provided a joint statement by both Union’s National Officers, that they would cooperate with one another in a manner likely to secure and maintain stable and effective collective bargaining arrangements, and, if the employer wishes, they would enter into arrangements under which collective bargaining was conducted by the unions acting together on behalf of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit.   The Panel notes the Employer’s concerns but in the absence of any evidence to counter the Unions’ claim, the Panel finds that there are no grounds to believe that the Unions would not co-operate as they have stated and consequently this test is satisfied.   

7. Decision

55)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 47 - 54 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Ms Julia Buck

Ms Joanne Kaye

23 July 2025