Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 12 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1471(2025)

12 September 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 & 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)         By a decision dated 23 July 2025 the Panel accepted the Unions’ application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. In e-mails dated 15 August 2025 the parties confirmed that the appropriate bargaining unit in this matter was that originally proposed by the Unions, albeit expressed in different terms as set out below:

“Colleagues employed by 3663 Transport Limited (a subsidiary of BFS Group Limited). These colleagues are salaried transport roles across all Bidfood (BFS Group Limited) depots, namely: Basingstoke, Battersea, Bedford, Bicester, Birmingham, Bodmin, Bradford, Chepstow, Edinburgh, Gateshead, Glasgow, Harlow, Hoddesdon, Inverness, Lee Mill, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Oban, Paddock Wood, Penrith, Reading, Salisbury, Salisbury OK, Slough, Stowmarket, Swansea, Wakefield, Wolverhampton, Worcester and Worthing. Their job titles are: c1 Driver, Debriefer, Driver LGV Trainee, Driver Trainer, Drivers Assistant, Multi Drop Driver, Route Planner, Transport Administrator, Transport Co-ordinator, Transport Operative, Trunker/Shunter and Van Driver.”

4)         As the agreed bargaining unit covered the same group of workers as that proposed by the Unions in their application, the Panel moved to the next stage in the statutory process.

5)         On 19 August 2025 the Case Manager wrote to the Unions to ascertain whether they were claiming that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Unions. In a letter of the same date the Unions confirmed that they were not claiming majority membership in the bargaining unit.

6)         On 20 August 2025 the Panel, not being satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Unions, 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 Unions 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.

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

2. Issues to be determined

8)    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 Unions’ submissions on the form of ballot

9)         In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 27 August 2025 the Unions said that they believed a workplace ballot was most appropriate for the following reasons:

i. Accessibility

The workers in the bargaining unit reported for duty at the workplace, making on -site voting straightforward and inclusive. Postal ballots risked disenfranchising workers with unstable or shared addresses, those who move frequently, or those who experience irregular access to post.

ii. Turnout and Representativeness

Workplace ballots achieved consistently higher levels of participation than postal ballots. Higher turnout ensured that the result genuinely reflected the wishes of the bargaining unit, in line with the CAC’s duty to secure a representative outcome.

iii. Efficiency and Reliability

A workplace ballot would avoid delays, lost or mis-delivered postal papers, and confusion. The process could be completed more quickly and securely on-site.

iv. Fairness

The ballot would be overseen by a Qualified Independent Person appointed by the CAC, that would ensure secrecy, integrity, and neutrality. There would be no risk of unfairness, as private rooms or designated areas could be provided to allow workers to vote confidentially and securely. This measure would guarantee that no worker could be pressured or influenced in how they cast their vote.

v. No Practical Barriers

The workplace was suitable for ballot arrangements (private rooms or designated areas could be used, with provisions for shifts). There were no operational or logistical obstacles that would prevent a secure on-site ballot.

vi. Union Representatives

It was the preference of the on-site union representatives to hold workplace ballots.

10)       The Unions considered that a workplace ballot was the most appropriate and practicable method of securing the democratic participation of workers.

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

11)       In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 27 August 2025 the Employer stated that it believed a postal ballot would be more effective and fairer for the following reasons:

i. The company operated across 31 sites nationwide, and a workplace ballot would therefore be highly impractical for a 24/7 operation that was spread across such a large geographic area. Additionally, the cost of a workplace ballot that covered all shifts and roles was likely to be significantly higher.

ii. Around 80–85% of the bargaining unit were drivers, who spend less than an hour per day at their depot. Consequently, they would have less access to workplace voting opportunities.

iii. The operation runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and the majority of staff in the bargaining unit were on site between 4:00am–6:30am and 1:30pm–6:00pm. There were long periods where 80 - 85% of the bargaining unit were not on site and it would therefore be inefficient for a QIP to monitor the voting, or multiple representatives from the QIP would be required.

iv. Drivers were unlikely to wait to access voting before they went out on route as they would want to avoid delays, and at the end of their shift they were keen to go home. Therefore, a postal ballot would allow them their full attention away from the workplace.

v. Due to the nature of the driving roles, return times could not be guaranteed, and this would make it very difficult to ensure fair and consistent access to a workplace ballot.

vi. The Employer maintained robust and accurate personal data, including home addresses, and this would ensure that a postal ballot was both reliable and practical.

vii. Those workers within the bargaining unit who were depot-based amounted to less than 20%, but they also worked unsocial shift patterns further adding to the amount of site-based coverage that would be needed for a workplace ballot.

5. Considerations

12)       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 on the grounds of costs and practicality. The multiple sites and shift patterns of the workers in the bargaining unit raise doubts as to the practicality of a workplace ballot and a workplace ballot would give rise to costs far in excess to those which would be incurred in a postal ballot, not least as a workplace ballot would require attendance by the CAC-appointed QIP at all locations, for time periods covering all shifts.

6. Decision

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

14)       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 Julia Buck

Ms Joanne Kaye 

12 September 2025