Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 18 August 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1481(2025)

18 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:

Unite the Union

and

BEAR Scotland Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 16 July 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by BEAR Scotland Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Road Worker, Road Maintenance, Storeman, Bridgeman and Electrical Supervisor.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Bear Scotland Limited, Bridgepoint Depot, 23a Longman Drive, Inverness, IV1 1SU.” The application was received by the CAC on 16 July 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 17 July 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 23 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 Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Stephen Jary. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 30 July 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 18 August 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said comments before arriving at a decision.  

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 stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 20 June 2025. The Union said that the Employer declined the recognition request. The Union attached a copy of its letter dated 20 June 2025 and the Employer’s response dated 23 June 2025.

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 did not propose that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 900. The Union stated that there were 22 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer agreed with this figure. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the union answered, “18 members.” When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said, “during the period of the last 10 months, as a result of recognition campaigning and wage balloting the member growth is up 600%.”

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “all current Unite members are part of the bargaining unit specified.” The Union said that the bargaining unit had 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 bargaining unit, the Union answered “None.”

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 16 July 2025.

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

10)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 20 June 2025. The Employer said that it had responded to the request on 23 June 2025 stating that it did not want to enter into a collective agreement.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 16 July 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said it had 862 employees spread across the organisation “there are 81 employees in the Inverness depot of which 30 are Operatives. We are unclear of Unite Union’s definition and composition of the bargaining unit.” The Employer explained that it would require clarity on the definition of the proposed bargaining unit before it could confirm whether or not it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit.

12)       The Employer stated that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it was unclear on the Union’s “definition and composition of the bargaining unit.”

13)       When asked 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 answered, “we cannot provide a considered response until we are clear on the Union’s definition of the bargaining unit and its composition.”

14)       The Employer answered “we are not aware of any previous applications” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Union’s comments on the Employer’s response document

15)       The Union explained that the bargaining group it was seeking recognition for were the road workers based at the Inverness depot. “The information we have, and the company agreed to in a Zoom call, is that there are approximately 22 employees who fall under these categories (Highway Maintenance). From this number, we have 18 members, and this is the latest figure as of today, the 23rd of July.

We gave a list of the categories:

Roadworker

Road Maintenance

Storeman

Bridgeman

Electrical Supervisor

These are the only positions that would fall under the bargaining group for the Inverness depot. Bear Scotland operates different depots with varying wage structures, as they have different contracts throughout Scotland.”

6. The membership and support check

16)       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 a petition supplied by the Union. 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). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 24 July 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

17)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 29 July 2025 and from the Union 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.   

18)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 32 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer explained that at the Inverness Depot it had 80 workers in total. Of these 80 workers 32 were classed as operatives and 48 as staff. The Employer said that it assumed that the operative population fell within the Union’s definition. The Employer listed the following roles:

• Apprentice Roadworker
• Cleaner
• Road Worker 2
• Road Worker 3
• Road Worker 4
• Road Worker 5
• Specialist Road Worker 1
• Street Lighting Chargehand
• Supervisor
• TRISS Operative

19)       The list of members supplied by the Union contained 18 names. The Union listed the following roles:

• Roadworker
• Storeman
• Bridgeman
• Electrical Supervisor

According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 15 a membership level of 46.88%.

20)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 31 July 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 7 August 2025.

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

21)       The Union in separate e mails dated 30 July 2025 and 1 August 2025 said that it had contacted and confirmed with its members that “their job titles are correct and aside from the Grading of Road Workers, all appears to be in order. We never intended to include cleaners, Street Lighting Chargehands, Supervisors or TRISS Operatives as we have no members that come under these job categories.”

22)       The Union said that it believed that the Employer had included the additional job titles/roles “to dilute the density of membership thus resulting in the union having less than the 50% membership required to obtain recognition.” The Union went on to say that its bargaining unit was clearly defined and could not be open to misinterpretation by the Employer. The Union added “to summarise, the bargaining unit defined in our application to the CAC should be:

Job Title	Member Numbers
Apprentice Road Worker	1
Roadworker Grade 2	2
Roadworker Grade 3	7
Roadworker Grade 4	2
Roadworker Grade 5	1
Storeman/possible Roadworker Grade 4	1
Specialist Roadworker 1	1
Bridgeman/Technician	1

Additionally, we have realised that the electrical supervisor should not be part of the bargaining unit. Excluding the Electrical Supervisor, our membership totals 16. We arrive at a total of 23 employees in the proposed bargaining unit. With our membership of 16, this gives us a participation rate of 69.56%.”

23)       In an email dated 7 August 2025the Employer confirmed that it had no further comments at this time based on the detail of information that had been provided.

8. Considerations

24)       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.

25)       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 paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

26)       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. 

27)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 16 to 20 above) showed that 46.88% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 17 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

28)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 27 above the Panel has 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)

29)       Under paragraph 36(1) 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. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 46.88% shows that, on the balance of probabilities, 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.

9. Decision

30)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 24-29 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Stephen Jary

18 August 2025