Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 26 March 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1517(2025)

25 March 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

AGREEMENT OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

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.

3)         By a decision dated 14 January 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 3 March 2026 the parties notified the CAC that they had reached an agreement as to the appropriate bargaining unit and this was “Debriefers, HGV Drivers and Shunters, working at the Culina Logistics Warehouse at the Port of Tilbury (Culina Logistics Limited, Berth 45, Port of Tilbury, Tilbury, Essex RM18 7EH”.This bargaining unit differed from that originally proposed by the Union in its application.

2. Issues

4)         As the bargaining unit agreed by the parties differed from that proposed by the Union, Paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) requires the Panel to decide whether the Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 the Schedule. The matters that the Panel must consider are: -

• is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 44)
• is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 45(a))
• are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition? (paragraph 45(b))
• is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? (paragraph 46)
• has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? (paragraphs 47 to 49)

5)         In a letter dated 3 March 2026 the Panel invited the parties to make submissions on these matters for consideration by the Panel.

3. Views of the Union

6)         In an email dated 3 March 2026 the Union answered the questions as follows:

• Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “No”
• Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? “Yes, we believe the bargaining unit has 31 HGV, 3 Shunters and 4 Debriefers total 38, we have membership of 21”.
• Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition? “Yes, petitions previously provided evidence of this”
• Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? “No”
• Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? “No”

4. Views of the Employer

7)         In an email dated 5 March 2026 the Employer answered the questions as follows:

• The Employer confirmed that there had been no previous application, no competing union claim, and no existing recognition agreement covering any workers in the agreed bargaining unit.
• Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? The Employer stated that it was not currently in a position to confirm this, as since its last assessment there had been both starters and leavers, and it did not have visibility over which of those employees were Union members. The Employer added that the removal of Team Leaders and Coordinators from the bargaining unit excluded a further five employees, and that this change could have a significant impact on the overall percentage.
• When asked whether it knew if the majority of workers in the new bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition, the Employer stated that it was unable to confirm this based on the information currently available to it.
• The Employer in agreement with the Union’s position, stated that no competing application had been made by any other trade union, nor was there any indication that another union represented any workers within the newly defined bargaining unit.
• The Employer confirmed that no previous application had been made in respect of the agreed bargaining unit. There was no record of any earlier claims, requests, or proceedings relating to this unit.

5. The membership and support check

8)         To assist in the determination of two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the agreed 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 and support for recognition within the agreed bargaining unit. The Union provided a list its members in the agreed bargaining unit, the information from the Union was received by the CAC on 11 March 2026. The Employer provided a list of workers in the agreed bargaining unit on 12 March 2026. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter from the Case Manager to both parties dated 6 March 2026. The Panel is satisfied that the 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 38 workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 24 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the agreed bargaining unit was 24, a membership level of 63.16%.

10)       The Union also provided a petition, which contained 35 names/signatures.  The information provided was, First Name, Surname, Membership no: Date of Birth and Job Description. The Union’s petition contained the following statement:

“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 and 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 Union’s 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.”

11)       The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 35 workers but 6 of these signatures did not appear on the Employer’s list, leaving 29 signatories. This represented 76.32% of the proposed bargaining unit. 15 signatories were members of the Union and 14, that is 36.84% of the petition signatories, were non-members.

12)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 16 March 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the result.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

13)       In an email dated 16 March 2026 the Union stated, “Unite notes the outcome of the independent checks. The report confirms that: 24 of the 38 workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of Unite, representing 63.16% membership density, and 29 workers (76.32%) have signed the petition supporting union recognition. These figures demonstrate a clear majority support for recognition within the bargaining unit. In Unite’s view, the statutory validity tests under paragraph 45 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are therefore satisfied. Given the level of union membership and the strong evidence of workforce support, Unite considers that a ballot would be unnecessary and that the Panel can proceed to declare the Union recognised for collective bargaining”.

14)       In an email dated 18 March 2026 the Employer stated that they had no comments to make from its side.

7. Considerations

15)       The Panel must decide whether the Union’s application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered the parties’ submissions and the other evidence before it. The following matters are not disputed:

• there is no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the agreed bargaining unit;
• there is no competing application from another union; and
• there has been no previous application in respect of the agreed bargaining unit.

16)       The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the validity criteria contained in paragraphs 45(a) and (b) are met.

Paragraph 45(a)

17)       Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager outlined above showed that 63.16% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As previously stated, the Panel is satisfied that the 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 bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(b)

18)       Under paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule, an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The result of the membership check showed a membership level of 63.16% and the check of the Unions’ petition showed that it had been signed by 14 non-members representing 36.84% of the agreed bargaining unit.

19)       In assessing whether it is likely that a majority of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition of the Union, the Panel believes that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, trade union membership can be taken as a legitimate indicator of likely support for recognition for collective bargaining purposes.  

20)       Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the agreed 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 45(b) of the Schedule.

8. Decision

21)       The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC must proceed with the application.

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Rob Lummis

Mr Paul Noon OBE

25 March 2026