Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 15 August 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1484(2025)

15 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

Calor Gas Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 23 July 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Calor Gas Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All Drivers” based at 30 Abbotsinch Road, Grangemouth FK3 9Y, Scotland.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 23 July 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 30 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 Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Matt Smith OBE.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

3)         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.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 6 August 2025.  The acceptance period was then extended to 20 August 2025 to allow a membership check to be conducted and for the parties to comment on the results before the Panel arrived at a decision.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 27 May 2025 by email. The Employer, in its response dated 2 June 2025, rejected the Union’s claim for recognition.

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 did not provide a response. 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.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 1760 and 24 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 14 were Union members. The Union provided an up-to-date list of its membership to the CAC with its application form.

8)         Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.  When called upon to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated that it held regular meetings with its members, during which it observed a notable increase in membership. It confirmed that a majority of workers within the proposed bargaining unit were members, highlighting that the significant growth in membership reflected a clear desire among workers for union support and representation in the workplace.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because the bargaining unit would cover all drivers. The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence, and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 23 July 2025.  

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

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 27 May 2025. The Employer responded in a letter to the Union dated 2 June 2025 stating: “……….I write in response to your request for voluntary recognition at our Grangemouth site, specifically for our drivers. As a company we acknowledge the importance of ensuring the well-being and rights of our workforce are understood and listened to, and we are continually striving to ensure we offer the right way to connect on a regular basis with our communities across the business. Having taken time to consider your request we have made the decision to not pursue your desire for recognition at our Grangemouth site. Our decision is based on our belief that as a company we want to not only maintain direct contact and dialogue with our employees, but in the coming months will be looking to ensure that there is a more structured and clear process to do this, enabling our employees’ greater access to our managers and leaders. We appreciate the valuable role unions play in advocating for workers’ rights but feel at this time as a company we are committed to the ongoing engagement of our employees to ensure we actively address their needs, continue to review and improve conditions and promote a culture of inclusivity in line with our values, whilst fostering Calor as a truly great place to work.”

12)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 23 July 2025. The Employer, when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, stated: “The bargaining unit contains low numbers c24, which is not compatible with effective management of a business with over 30 sites nationwide”.

13)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No”. When asked if the Employer agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the union’s application, the Employer stated “Yes”.

14)       The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

15)       The Employer, when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, and to indicate its reasons for disagreeing, with any available evidence, the Employer’s response was: “Unable to agree. We do not collect trade union membership data as part of recruitment or onboarding activity. A search of current payroll deductions show only 2 employees making TU deductions none of whom are based out of Grangemouth”.

16)       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 said: “Calor understands that there has been representations made to the workforce concerning Union representation made from within the local cohort. Calor has not made any direct counter proposals with the Cohort at this point and therefore have not had opportunity to make our case to the contrary/counter argument directly to the workforce”.

17)       Finally, the Employer stated, “Not aware”, when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit.   Asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered, “Single Application from Unite the Union”.

5. The check of membership and support

18)       To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether at least 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.  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 full names and 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 and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 1 August 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

19)       The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 4 August 2025, and from the Employer on 5 August 2025.

20)       The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 23 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 15 names.  According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 15, a membership level of 65.22%.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 5 August 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

21)       In its comments dated 5 August 2025, the Union stated, “Looking at the report and having over 65% union density, therefore, our application should be accepted by the CAC”.

22)       The Employer did not submit any comments.

7. Considerations

23)       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 carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

24)       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 issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met. 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

25)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 20 above showed that 65.22% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed 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)

26)       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.

27)       The Panel notes from the membership check that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (65.22%) are members of the Union.  In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf. 

28)       On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

29)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Matt Smith OBE

15 August 2025