Validity 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-zentia-limited/validity-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1478(2025)
17 December 2025
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING
DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
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) By a decision dated 13 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. No agreement was reached between the parties as to the appropriate bargaining unit. Following a virtual hearing held on 6 October 2025 the Panel decided, by a decision dated 22 October 2025, that the appropriate bargaining unit was “all factory workers located at Kingsway South, Team Valley, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear NE11 0SP. For the avoidance of doubt Shift Supervisors and DC Operators are excluded.”
2. Issues
4) As the determined bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In a letter dated 22 October 2025 the Case Manager invited each party to make submissions on this matter for consideration by the Panel.
5) In a letter to the Case Manager dated 29 October 2025 the Employer made the following comments on the validity tests:
(a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit?
“No.”
(b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit?
It was the Employer’s view that a further membership and support check may be required, and it was willing to provide a revised list of employees (factory workers) as well as a list of employees who had left the business since January 2025. The Employer asked that the CAC cross referenced the list of leavers against any list of union members that the Union provided.
(c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition?
The Employer did not believe that a majority of the workers in the new bargaining unt would be likely to favour recognition. The Employer said that it had submitted 15 signatures obtained from employees on 1 October 2025, and that the CAC and the Union had already had sight of the redacted versions. The Employer maintained that this evidence remained valid given that the signatures were from employees within the bargaining unit. Furthermore, the 15 signatures out of the bargaining unit comprising 84 employees showed that 18% of employees within the revised bargaining unit were not in favour of recognition of the Union.
(d) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?
“No.”
(e) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?
“No.”
6) In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 5 November 2025 the Union made the following comments on the validity tests:
(a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “
No
(b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit?
“Yes.”
(c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition?
“Yes.”
(d) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?
“No.”
(e) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?
“No.”
3. Membership and support check
7) To assist the determination of two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely whether 10% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the determined bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 45(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the determined bargaining unit and a check of the petitions compiled by both the Union and the Employer. 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 determined bargaining unit along with a copy of its petition, 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 signed by workers in favour of recognition. It was explicitly agreed with both the 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 November 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.
8) The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 14 November 2025 and from the Employer on 17 November 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
9) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 84 workers in the determined bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 39 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the determined bargaining unit was 33, a membership level of 39.29%.
10) The Union’s petition comprised 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.
11) The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 4 workers in the determined bargaining unit, a figure which represents 4.76% of the determined bargaining unit. Of the 4 signatories, 1 was a member of the Union (1.19% of the determined bargaining unit), and 3 were non-members (3.57% of the determined bargaining unit).
12) The Employer’s petition comprised of 21 A4 sheets and contained 23 names/signatures. The petition was set out as follows:
“I understand that GMB union wants to be recognised within Zentia. I am signing this petition to indicate that I do not agree to this.”
Beneath the proposition was a signature. Some signatories also included their printed name and/or a date. In its covering letter the Employer said that the petitions were provided voluntarily by several employees within the bargaining unit on 1 October 2025, 13 November 2025, and 14 November 2025. To assist the Case Manager in the comparison the Employer said that it had highlighted those workers who had signed the petition. However, a few of the signatures were eligible and without this information those signatures could not be verified. In some cases, it bore no resemblance to the name given by the Employer.
13) The check of the Employer’s petition showed that it had been signed by 19 workers in the determined bargaining unit, a figure which represents 22.62% of the determined bargaining unit. Of the 19 signatories, 4 were members of the Union (4.76% of the determined bargaining unit), and 15 were non-members (17.86% of the determined bargaining unit). None of the workers who had signed the Union’s petition appeared on the Employer’s petition.
14) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 20 November 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 24 November 2025.
4. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check
15) In a letter to the Case Manager, dated 24 November 2025, the Employer said that it had noted the comments from the report regarding some of the signatures being illegible, although it had not been provided with any further detail as to which signatures it was referring to. The Employer asked that this information was provided so that it could arrange for the signatories to verify them further. The Employer said that those signatures should not be discounted. It was therefore the Employer’s view that the “Proportion of workers in the determined bargaining unit who have signed the petition”, should be 27.8%, and not 22.62% as stated within the report.
16) In a letter to the Case Manager, dated 24 November 2025, the Union said that it would like to clarify its position regarding the bargaining unit. The Union said that the Employer had requested that employees were included within the bargaining unit that the Union had never requested. The Union said that it had demonstrated that its members constituted at least 10% of the workers in the relevant bargaining unit proposed by the Union. Additionally, it had shown that the majority of workers in the relevant bargaining unit would be likely favour recognition.
17) The Union explained that there was discontent amongst the Operators/shift workers and that the Employer had seen a big rise in the turnover of its employees. The Union said that its examples given were just a few reasons as to why operators/shift workers had requested for the Union to represent them. The Union said that its membership over the last year had increased, to approximately 40 production Operators/Shift workers out of 56. The Union further explained the differences in the working conditions amongst those workers in the bargaining unit, and its reasons for proposing a smaller bargaining unit. However, this is a matter that has already been determined by the Panel.
18) The Union asked that the CAC disregard the Employer’s petitions, and said that they were conducted under supervised, verifiable conditions. The Union said that employees within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit had seen the Employer’s petition, and that those who had signed the petition did not understand what they had signed for. The Union said that it also believed that the Employer had added employees who were not in its proposed bargaining unit.
19) The Union further stated that with regards to the GMB petition of non-members, this petition was carried out during a visit to the site and it was merely to gauge the feelings of the non-members. The Union believed that given the number of union members, it was all that was required to take its support to over 50% in support of recognition.
5. Considerations
20) The Panel is required to decide whether the Union’s application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered carefully the submissions of the parties and all the other evidence before it.
21) The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45 of the Schedule.
Paragraph 45(a)
22) Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers in the determined bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 7 to 9 above) showed that 39.29% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 8 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 determined bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.
Paragraph 45(b)
23) Paragraph 45(b) provides that the application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit determined by the CAC would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Panel notes that, for the reasons given in paragraph 22 above the level of membership of the Union is 39.29%. Combining this with the percentage of the Union’s petition signatories who were non-union members (being 3.57%) gives a total of 42.86%.
24) The Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 22.62% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit (19 out of 23 workers) had signed the Employer’s petition, against recognition of the Union (see paragraph 13 above). Of those who had signed the petition, 4 were union members (4.76% of the determined bargaining unit), and 15 were non-members (17.86% of the determined bargaining unit).
25) It is the Panel’s view that having considered all of the evidence before it, there is insufficient evidence that a majority of 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. Nor was there any evidence in the Union’s submissions to convince the Panel that there was any further support other than that already provided by the Union for the check. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence the Panel must conclude that the statutory test has not been met.
6. Decision
26) For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is invalid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule.
Panel
Mr Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair
Mr John Rawling
Mr Christopher Burrows
17 December 2025