Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 30 September 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1592(2026)

30 September 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

Prospect

and

DHL Air (UK) Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 31 July 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by DHL Air (UK) Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Part 145 Licenced Engineers and Mechanics (A and B).” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “East Midlands Airport, London Heathrow Airport, London Stansted Airport, London Luton Airport, Belfast Airport and Edinburgh Airport.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 31 July 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 August 2026 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 Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Deborah England and Ms Joanne Kaye. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          By a decision dated 1 September 2026 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. On 17 September 2026 the parties confirmed that the bargaining unit was agreed and that it was as proposed by the Union in its application namely “Part 145 Licenced Engineers and Mechanics (A and B).”

4)         The Schedule provides that where the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2), unless any of three qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found there is a majority of union members in the bargaining unit if any of these conditions is fulfilled. The qualifying conditions are set out in paragraph 22(4). They are:

a) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;

b) a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit inform the CAC that they do not want the unions to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;

c) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the unions to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

2. Union’s submissions on the issue of majority membership

5)         On 17 September 2026 the Union was asked whether it claimed that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and therefore submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an email dated 21 September 2026, submitted that it had a majority of members in the bargaining unit that had been agreed between the Union and the Employer and therefore did not believe a ballot was necessary.

3. Employer’s submissions on the issue of majority membership

6)         On 21 September 2026 the Union’s email was copied to the Employer, and its submissions were invited on the Union’s claim to majority membership and on the paragraph 22 qualifying conditions as set out above.

7)         In an email dated 24 September 2026 the Employer said, “we don’t have any evidence ourselves with regards to how many of our employees in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union.  In addition, our Engineering Managers have had feedback from a significant number of the Engineers in the proposed bargaining unit, from both those that are and are not members of the union, that they do not want the union Prospect to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf and therefore, we believe the fairest and right thing to do would be to hold a ballot. Our Engineers work a week on, week off shifts, which makes it difficult to collect evidence at short notice to support the above.  In addition, taking a week’s leave means they are not in the business for 3 weeks, as a result, we believe a ballot to be the fairest way to proceed.”

4. Union’s comments on the Employer’s submissions

8)         The Employer’s submissions were copied to the Union for comment.  In an email dated 25 September 2026 the Union said

Prospect strongly opposes the Employer’s request that a ballot be held. The Employer acknowledges in its submission that it does not possess evidence regarding union membership within the proposed bargaining unit. At the same time, the Employer is fully aware that the CAC has already undertaken its independent membership check and has determined that Prospect’s membership exceeds the statutory threshold required for recognition. The Employer’s assertion is therefore not supported by any evidence that calls into question the outcome of that verification process. Furthermore, the Employer has not provided any credible evidence from a significant number of union members demonstrating that they do not wish Prospect to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The submission relies solely upon unspecified feedback allegedly received by Engineering Managers. No statements, petitions, correspondence or other documentary evidence have been produced to substantiate these claims. Prospect has maintained regular engagement with its members throughout this application. During a series of recent member meetings, members have consistently reaffirmed their support for collective bargaining and their desire for Prospect to be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining within the proposed bargaining unit. We have received no evidence suggesting any significant level of opposition amongst our members. The Employer’s argument appears to be based on speculation rather than evidence. While the Employer refers to operational difficulties in gathering information because of shift patterns, this does not constitute evidence that any of the qualifying conditions under paragraph 22(4) are met.

Prospect submits that:

1) The CAC membership check has already demonstrated substantial support for recognition.

2) The Employer has produced no credible evidence that a significant number of union members oppose collective bargaining.

3) The Employer has produced no membership evidence that creates doubt as to whether a significant number of members wish Prospect to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

4) In these circumstances, there is no basis for concluding that a ballot is required in the interests of good industrial relations.

Accordingly, Prospect respectfully requests that the Panel reject the Employer’s submission and proceed to declare Prospect recognised for collective bargaining purposes within the bargaining unit without the need for a ballot.

5. Considerations

9)         The Panel is satisfied that the Union has majority membership in the bargaining unit. The Union has 46 members in a bargaining unit comprising of 82 workers this equates to 56.10% of the bargaining unit. In circumstances where the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union, the Schedule requires the Panel to declare the Union recognised unless it is satisfied that one or more of the qualifying conditions are met. Indeed, it states that the Panel ‘must’ declare the Union to be recognised unless it finds that one or more of the qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 4 above are met.

10)       The Panel has given thorough consideration to each of the qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4).

Condition 22(4)(a)

11)       The Panel is not persuaded that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. In arriving at this conclusion, the Panel took into account the representations made by the Employer in paragraph 7. The Employer has not provided any evidence to show how industrial relations would be impacted were a ballot not to take place. Instead, the Employer has said that its preference was that those in the bargaining unit should be able to vote on the issue of recognition so that the Employer could be sure that this was what the workers wanted.

Condition 22(4)(b)

12)       The Panel is not satisfied that this condition has been met. According to the Employer the Engineering Managers had received feedback from a significant number of the Engineers in the bargaining unit, (who were both union and non-union members) stating that they did not want the union Prospect to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Employer did not submit any correspondence from workers supporting this statement. A significant number of union members within the bargaining unit have not informed the CAC that they do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

Condition 22(4)(c)

13)       No membership evidence as defined in paragraph 22(5) had been produced that could lead the panel to conclude there were doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel is satisfied that this condition is not met.

6. Decision

14)       The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule are met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “Part 145 Licenced Engineers and Mechanics (A and B).”

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Ms Deborah England

Ms Joanne Kaye

30 September 2026