Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 14 January 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1517(2025)

14 January 2026

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

Culina Logistics Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 10 December 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Culina Logistics Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Transport operatives (currently referred to as HGV Drivers, Transport Co-Ordinator’s, Shunters Transport Debriefers and Team Leaders)  working at the Culina Logistics Warehouse at the Port of Tilbury (Culina Logistics Limited, Berth 45, Port of Tilbury, Tilbury, Essex RM18 7EH). The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 10 December 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 17 December 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 Rob Lummis and Mr Paul Noon 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 24 December 2025. The acceptance period was then extended to 16 January 2026 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 28 October 2025 via email. The Employer, in its response dated 5 November 2025 stated it was open to discussing and negotiating on recognition. The Employer then, on 18 November 2025, confirmed that it was not willing to negotiate on a voluntary recognition agreement at that time.

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.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 380 and 45 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 24 were Union members. Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”. 

8)         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, “List of petition favoring recognition will be sent to CAC - 35 signatures”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit as “This is a discrete and clearly identifiable group of employees who share the same terms and conditions of employment (save for hourly rates of pay), and who all carry out roles of similar scope, i.e. delivery and transport functions within a single workplace. All these employees fall under the same line management structure”. 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 10 December 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 8 October 2025. The Employer responded in an email to the Union stating, “That we were open to exploring a way forward but wanted to seek further advice from ACAS and the wider business. Following consultation with the above, we confirmed that we did not wish to enter into a voluntary recognition agreement and stated that we did not want to risk overriding the collectives decision and it is important to respect their wishes”.

12)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 10 December 2025. The Employer, when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before it had received a copy of the application form from the Union, stated “No”.

13)       The Employer considered that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate bargaining unit and confirmed its objections to the proposed unit by stating, that there was “Conflict of interest- For debriefers, Transport Co-Ordinator’s and Team Leaders as they are responsible for the management of the HGV Drivers and Shunters. Key elements for these roles all differ including pay, working hours, break entitlement”.  

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “Yes”.

15)       When asked, the Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application noting that the Team Leaders, Transport Co-Ordinators, and Debriefers did not share the same terms and conditions as all colleagues.

16)       When asked to give the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference, the Employer stated “Transport Team Leaders – 3 Colleagues Transport Co-Ordinator- 1 Colleague Debriefers - 4 Colleagues HGV Drivers - 37 Colleagues Shunters - 1 Colleagues. We do not agree with the Team Leaders, Transport Co-Ordinator and Debriefers within the bargaining unit. Different pay structure for these roles, breaks and working hours”.

17)       When asked to confirm if there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer confirmed there was no existing recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

18)       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, stated, “N/A”.

19)       The Employer when asked if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, and to indicate its reasons for taking this view, with any available evidence, the Employer stated that “We do not consider that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, for the following reasons:

Limited Evidence of Interest - There has been no clear demonstration of widespread support among employees for union recognition.

Employee Feedback - Informal feedback gathered through team discussions and direct conversations suggests that many employees feel adequately represented through existing communication channels with management- these include Health and Safety Forums, Information and Communication Meetings and Drop In Sessions with management.

Absence of Collective Action - There has been no evidence of collective petitions, coordinated campaigns, or other organized activity that would indicate majority support.

Turnover and Demographics - A significant proportion of the bargaining unit consists of newer employees who have not engaged with union activity. The vast majority of colleagues have started within the last 12 months. Turnover rates further reduce the likelihood of sustained majority support for recognition.

Based on the above evidence, we believe recognition support is unlikely to command majority backing within the bargaining unit. The prevailing sentiment among employees appears to favor existing representation structures, with limited appetite for union recognition”.

20)       Finally, when asked on 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 stated “N/A”.

5. The check of membership and support

21)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, (1) whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and (2) 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 and support 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, and a copy of the petition in support of recognition mentioned in its application.  It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the names of the employees and members within the bargaining unit and the petition signatories would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 19 December 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

22)       The information requested from the Employer was received on 22 December 2025 and from the Union on 19 December 2025.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

23)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 39 workers. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 26 names.

24)       The Union also provided a petition, which contained 35 names/signatures.  The petition consisted of 2 A4 sheets with 4 columns with the headings requesting: Print Name, Job Title, Signature, and Date, the Petition was set out as follows:

“Petition in support of union recognition

Culina Logistics Limited

Unite the Union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise Unite for collective bargaining, please sign the petition.

The petition and your personal details will be kept confidential by Unite the Union and will be shared with the Central Arbitration Committee an ACAS only, who will use these to confidentially verify the level of support for our collective bargaining application. Your employer will not receive your details or a copy of this petition. The petition will be retained by Unite for the duration of the recognition campaign and any associated issues. Unite the Unions full up-to-date private policy can be found at www.unitetheunion.org/privacypolicy.I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays”.

25)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 21, a membership level of 53.85%.  The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 35 workers but 9 of these signatures did not appear on the Employers list, leaving 29 signatories. This represented 74.36% of the proposed bargaining unit. Fifteen signatories were members of the Union and 14, that is 35.90% of the petition signatories, were non-members. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially.

26)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 23 December 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

27)       In an email dated 2 January 2026 the Union stated it had no comments to add at this stage.

28)       No comments were received by the Employer by the deadline imposed.

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 carefully considered 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 12. 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)

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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 25 above showed that 53.85% 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)

32)       The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether 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. The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of 39 workers provided by the Employer indicated that 29 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 74.36%. The petition was signed by 14 non-members amounting to 35.90% of the total. The wording on the petition is set out in paragraph 25 above.  The Panel believes the proposition in the petition is clear and unambiguous, referring to the specified Union being formally recognised for collective bargaining purposes, and would leave the signatory in no doubt what they were being asked to support.

33)       In the proposed bargaining unit, 53.85% of workers were union members, whilst 74.36% signed the union’s petition supporting recognition, including 35.90% of the workers who were not members of the Union.

34)       On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Rob Lummis

Mr Paul Noon OBE

14 January 2026