Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 13 August 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1478(2025)

13 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

Zentia Limited

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 July 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Zentia Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All shift fitters, shift electricians, production operators, factory Workers up to but excluding supervisors and DC operators.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Kingsway South, Team Valley, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear NE11 0SP.” The application was received by the CAC on 3 July 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 dated 10 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 Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr John Rawling, and Mr Christopher Burrows. 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 17 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 14 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)         In its application to the CAC the Union explained that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 18 June 2025. The Employer responded by letter dated 27 June 2025 declining the Union’s request.

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. The Union further added that it had “suggested Acas”, in its initial request letter but the Employer declined.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 180. The Union said that there were 53 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 41 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 in addition to its 41 members, it also had 4 signed petitions in support of recognition. 

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because the majority of those workers were members of the Union. The Union stated that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union said that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 3 July 2025. 

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 18 June 2025. The Employer explained that it had responded by letter of 27 June 2025, in which it had informed the Union that it was committed to a collaborative and responsive working environment through direct engagement with its workers. It had established internal mechanisms for consultation and feedback, including regular employee forums and direct access to senior management. The Employer said that it had not seen independent evidence to demonstrate that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit wished to be represented by the Union. Introducing a formal collective bargaining arrangement would create a significant structural change to the current employment model, that would cause disruption to existing communication processes and introduce complexity that would not be in the best interests of either the business or the workers.

11)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 3 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. The Employer explained that the Union had not defined a “factory worker”, although it believed that the exclusion of DC operators would create an unnecessary and complicated divide within the business particularly amongst employees who should be considered together. The Employer maintained that there was a lack of majority support, and that collective bargaining for the purposes of recognition could negatively impact employee relations and lead to conflict and division in the workplace. There was also a risk that it could impact business operations resulting in less flexibility and disruption to production.

12)       When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer said that it was misleading of the Union to suggest that it had refused Acas assistance. The Employer said that it had refused voluntary recognition, further explaining that the Union had simply stated in its initial request letter that, “I confirm that we would agree to a proposal (should you wish to make one) that the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service be requested to assist us in negotiating a recognition agreement.”

13)    The Employer disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application and said that based on the Union’s definition, the number of workers was 83. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14)       The Employer disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, stating that the Union had not disclosed its supporting evidence of membership. The Employer said that it also noted that the number of workers employed by Zentia Limited and the number of workers in the bargaining unit as claimed by the Union in its application was incorrect, and therefore the number of union members within the bargaining unit was also likely to be incorrect. The Employer said that it therefore welcomed the opportunity to review the members against the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. It was also the Employer’s view that membership of the Union did not indicate support for recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining.

15)       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 on 4 June 2025, the quarterly plant consultative committee meeting was held, which consisted of representatives within the bargaining unit as well as the DC. During the meeting, a proposal for a new type of committee with companywide representatives (to include its secondary site of Zentia Profiles Limited) meeting every quarter with direct access to the senior leadership team was put forward to the representatives to vote upon. On 19 June 2025, the representatives voted in favour of the new committee. Representatives had not raised any desire for recognition for collective bargaining by any union nor voted against the new committee. The proposal, which would provide adequate representation for the bargaining unit, was positively received and welcomed by the plant consultative committee and further supported that it was unlikely that the Union had majority support from its members for recognition. The application for recognition was made following a grievance raised by a GMB representative, who was supporting a colleague from within the bargaining unit. The Union’s purported evidence of majority support for collective bargaining was not as a result of any survey or ballot undertaken by the Union, it was simply based on the number of members claimed by the Union.

16)       Finally, when asked whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer answered “N/A”.

5. The membership and support check

17)       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 23 July 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

18)       The information requested from Union was received by the CAC on 23 July 2025, and from the Employer on 24 July 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

19)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 81 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 43 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 39, a membership level of 48.15%.

20)       The Union’s petition consisted of 1 A4 sheet and contained 4 names/signatures. The petition was headed with the GMB’s logo and was set out as follows:

“GMB TRADE UNION RECOGNITION PETITION

Zentia Limited, Kingsway South, Team Valley, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, NE11 0SP

PLEASE COMPLETE THIS PETITION TO SUPPORT THE BID FOR GMB TRADE UNION RECOGNITION. This petition will be used to demonstrate the strength of GMB union membership.”

Beneath the proposition was a table with 3 columns headed: “DATE”, “NAME”, and “SIGNATURE”. As the petition was not dated, the Union clarified that the signatures were collected on 13 June 2025.

21)      The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 4 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 4.94% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 4 signatories, 1 was a member of the Union (1.25%% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 3 were non-members (3.70% of the proposed bargaining unit).  

22)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 30 July 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by the close of business on 4 August 2025.

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

23)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 30 July 2025 the Union said that it believed the check had demonstrated that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the bargaining unit, and that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely favour recognition.

24)       The Union further explained that with regards to the petition, it believed that this was carried out on one visit to the site and it was merely to gage the feelings of the non-members. The Union said that given the current level of union membership, it considered that this was all that was required to take its level of support for recognition over 50%.

25)       Finally, the Union said that it was more than confident that the majority of workers support recognition and that it would have no objection meeting with the employer for further discussions if the CAC or the Employer felt that this was necessary.

26)       In a further e-mail dated 8 August 2025 the Union explained that it had just returned from leave and therefore asked that the following comments were considered by the Panel in addition to those already submitted by the Union. The Union raised concern regarding the number of workers on the Employer’s list (81) and said that it believed that there were “no more than 55 employees within the bargaining unit”. The Union said that nevertheless, even on the higher figure given by the Employer, it believed that the report had shown that it had satisfied both tests. The Union further stated that it trusted that there would be an opportunity later in the process for the Panel to investigate the figures further. 

27)       In an email to the CAC dated 31 July 2025 the Employer said that acknowledged that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit.

28)       In regards to the second test, 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, the Employer maintained that based on the findings of the report, only 4.94% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit had signed the petition, of which only 1.25% were union members. The Employer therefore believed that the majority of workers would not be likely to favour recognition of the Union. The Employer reiterated its point in paragraph 15 above, that it was not accepted that membership of the Union equates support for recognition of the Union.

7. Considerations

29)       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.

30)       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)

31)       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. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17 - 19 above) showed that 48.15% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 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)

32)       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. For the reasons given in paragraph 31 above the level of membership of the Unions is 48.15%. 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. In this case the Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 4.94% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (4 out of 81 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraphs 20 and 21 above). Of those who had signed the petition 1 was a Union member (1.24% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 3 were non-members (3.70% of the proposed bargaining unit). The Panel notes the Union’s comments that the petition was simply used to gage support amongst non-members, and to take the level of support over 50%. The Panel has also considered the Employer’s comments, however, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate a lack of support for trade union recognition from those within the bargaining unit. 

33)     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. 

34)       Finally, the Panel notes the Union’s concerns, set out in paragraph 26 above, in regard to the discrepancy in the number of workers that the parties believe fall within the proposed bargaining unit. However, in view of the Panel’s decision that the admissibility criteria set out in paragraphs 31 - 33 have been met, the Panel has not found it necessary to investigate the Union’s concerns for the purposes of this decision. This does not preclude the Panel from undertaking further investigations at a later stage of the process should it consider this to be appropriate.

8. Decision

35)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 30 - 34 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair

Mr John Rawling

Mr Christopher Burrows

13 August 2025