Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 18 August 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1444(2025)

15 August 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

Evtec Aluminium

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 January 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Evtec Aluminium (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All Operatives, Technicians, Forklift and Maintenance workers up to and including the level of Team Leader / Coordinator (Directs), excluding all management and Indirects as listed, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable Manager, Business & Process Improvement, Business & Process Improvement Supervisor, Commercial & Legal Assistant, Continuous Improvement Engineer, Cost Estimator, Financial Accountant, Financial Controller, HR Manager, HR Officer, Management Accountant, Master Scheduler, MP & L Manager, Payroll Manager, Project Engineer, Quality Engineer and Shift Manager, this list is not exhaustive. Located at: Chelmarsh, Daimler Green, Coventry, CV6 3LT.” The application was received by the CAC on 3 January 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 10 January 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham, and Mr Paul Moloney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3)         By a decision dated 11 February 2025 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. No agreement was reached between the parties as to the appropriate bargaining unit. Following a virtual hearing held on 21 May 2025 the Panel decided, by a decision dated 4 July 2025, that the appropriate bargaining unit was “all direct and indirect roles located at Chelmarsh, Daimler Green, Coventry, CV6 3LT.”

2. Issues

4)         As the determined bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In a letter dated 4 July 2025 the Case Manager invited each party to make submissions on this matter for consideration by the Panel.  

5)         In a letter to the Case Manager dated 9 July 2025 the Employer made the following comments on the validity tests:

a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit?

The Employer confirmed that there was no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit.”

b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit?

The Employer said that as of 9 July 2025, there were 149 (100 directs and 49 indirects) workers in the new bargaining unit.   The exact membership level for the new bargaining unit was unclear. The previous membership check, conducted in January 2025, was based on the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. This check confirmed that there were 69 members appearing on the Employer’s list of 138 workers.  However, two union members did not appear on the Employer’s list. While the membership level was 48.55%, this was based on Union’s proposed bargaining unit and not the new bargaining unit determined by the CAC. As such, that density would not reflect the membership in the new bargaining unit.

Furthermore, a period of nearly seven months had passed since the membership check, and it was highly likely that the membership make up had changed.

The Employer considered that it would be prudent to conduct a further membership check based on the new bargaining unit.

c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition?

There was no evidence to suggest that the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. The Employer again referred to the membership check conducted in January 2025, in relation to likely support, which had shown that 67 members within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit supported recognition based on Union’s petition. However, the Union’s petition focused solely on members in its proposed bargaining unit, and this was not reflective of all employees and/or the new bargaining unit.

Even if the results of the petition remained accurate at this point, which the Employer refuted, it did not demonstrate that a majority of workers in the new bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition. 

The Employer had received no feedback from a majority of workers in the new bargaining unit that indicated that they were in favour of recognition. When the business had de-recognised the Union on 9 October 2024, the feedback provided to the Managing Director during a shop floor discussion supported the decision. In addition, since the Works Committee was established (which served as an effective platform for representing all employees) in October 2024, there had been no sentiment expressed that the workers would favour their terms being collectively bargained.

Nevertheless, should the CAC be satisfied that a majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition, and a further membership check demonstrated that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union, the Employer asked that it have the opportunity to put forward submissions supporting its contention that one or more of the qualifying conditions in paragraph 22 of the Schedule applies, and that a ballot is held.  

d) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?

The Employer confirmed that there was no competing application from another union.

e) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?

By letter dated 4 November 2024 the Union made a request for recognition for a bargaining unit consisting of “all staff and operatives (directs) located at…” the Coventry site.  On 20 November 2024, the Union submitted an application to the CAC for the same bargaining unit.   This included workers in the new bargaining unit.  However, on 11 December 2024, the Union withdrew this application. This withdrawal occurred prior to the CAC accepting the application and it was therefore accepted by the Employer that the previous application did not have any relevance to the validity test.

6)         In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 15 July 2025 the Union made the following comments on the validity tests:

a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “

The Union had made enquiries and obtained information from employee representatives, and it confirmed that there was no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within new bargaining unit.

b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit?

The Union had established a membership level significantly exceeding 10% within the revised bargaining unit, and it was willing to present evidence to the Case Manager on a confidential basis to support this.

The Union drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that the previous validity test included all employees currently covered by the new bargaining unit. This was because the Employer proposed a broader unit for the test, and one that reflected the Employer’s own view of the appropriate bargaining unit, rather than the unit proposed by the Union. In light of this, the Union believed that it would still significantly exceed the required threshold for support.

c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition?

The Union believed that a clear majority of workers within the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining.

This belief was based on signed expressions of support in the form of its e-petition evidencing support for recognition. The e-petition had unique links attached to each individual member’s account and it was sent out to their private preferred contact method stored on the Union’s membership database. The petition was for Unite members only.

There was also on-site engagement and feedback, which had shown consistent and positive sentiment towards union recognition.

The Union believed that these factors amounted to compelling evidence of probable majority support.

d) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?

The Union was not aware of any competing application covering the same or overlapping bargaining unit. Nor was it aware of any concurrent efforts by other trade unions to pursue statutory recognition at the site.

e) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?

There had been no previous application by the Union, or any other trade union, in respect of the same or substantially the same bargaining unit.

3. Membership and support check

7)         To assist the determination of two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule,  namely whether 10% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the determined 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 within the determined bargaining unit and of a petition compiled 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 determined 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) and a copy of the petition signed by workers in favour of recognition. It was explicitly agreed with both the 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 24 July 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.  

8)         The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 28 July 2025 and from the Employer on 29 July 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this 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 145 workers in the determined bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 70 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the determined bargaining unit was 65, a membership level of 44.83%.  

10)       The Union also provided the results of an electronic petition. In its covering e-mail the Union explained that the e-petition had unique links attached to each individual member’s account and this was sent out to their private preferred contact method stored on its membership database. The Union confirmed that the petition was for Unite members only.

11)       The results of the petition were set out within a spreadsheet, which contained the following headings, “IP”, “Submission ID”, Submission Date”, “Membership Number”, “First Name”, “Surname”, and “Would you Vote in support of Recognition?”. Beneath the heading “Submission Date”, the dates ranged between 17 October 2024 and 19 December 2024. In answer to the question “Would you Vote in support of Recognition?”, for each individual, it stated “Yes”.

12)       The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 65 workers in the determined bargaining unit, a figure which represents 44.83% of the determined bargaining unit.  Of the 65 signatories, all were members of the Union (44.83% of the determined bargaining unit).  

13)       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 6 August 2025. 

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

14)       In a letter to the Case Manager, dated 5 August 2025, the Employer said that it had noted that the Union appeared to have only 44.83% in membership in the new bargaining unit, and that there had been no evidence put forward to show that the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. The Employer therefore believed that the Union’s application should be deemed inadmissible. To further support its case the Employer also made the following points:

i. The membership check indicated that 65 out of 145 workers within the bargaining unit support recognition based on Union’s petition. It was important to note that the petition appeared to focus solely on existing Unite members within the bargaining unit, rather than capturing the views of all workers in the bargaining unit. Therefore, it did not provide a comprehensive or representative measure of a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit. Until 9 October 2024, the Union was previously recognised for collective bargaining at the site, and there were still 2 individuals in the proposed bargaining unit who referred to themselves as “representatives”. The Union therefore had access to the whole bargaining unit via these “representatives”, yet it had not secured evidence (by way of signatures on a petition or otherwise) of any non-member supporting recognition.

ii. The Union’s petition was outdated and stale. The membership check conducted in January 2025 indicated that 67 members within the proposed bargaining unit supported recognition based on that petition. The Union was relying on the same petition for the revised bargaining unit.

While the exact timing of the petition used for the January membership check was unclear, it was reasonable to conclude that at least eight months had passed since it was conducted, and that this raised concerns about its current relevance.

However, even if the results of Union’s petition were still accurate at this point, it would not demonstrate likely majority support amongst the workers in the new bargaining unit, as the level of support was below 50%.

iii. The Employer had received no feedback from a majority of workers in the bargaining unit indicating that they favour recognition. When the business de-recognised the Union on 9 October 2024, the feedback provided to the Managing Director during shop floor discussions supported the decision. In addition, since the Works Committee was established (which served as an effective platform for representing all employees) in October 2024, there had been no sentiment expressed (from a majority of the bargaining unit or otherwise) that employees would favour their terms being collectively bargained.

iv. It was significant to note that while membership had increased by one since the check in January 2025, the number of individuals who had signed the petition in support of recognition appeared to have decreased from 67 to 65.  Given that the revised bargaining unit included all roles previously covered, plus additional ones, there appeared to be no other reasonable explanation for this reduction other than a decline in support for recognition.

15)      No comments were received from the Union.

5. Considerations

16)       The Panel is required to decide whether the Union’s application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered carefully the submissions of the parties and all the other evidence before it. 

17)       The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45 of the Schedule. 

Paragraph 45(a)

18)       Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers in the determined bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 7 to 9 above) showed that 44.83% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 8 above, the Panel is satisfied that this 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 determined bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(b) 

19)       Paragraph 45(b) provides that the application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit determined by the CAC would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Panel notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 44.83% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit (65 out of 145 workers) had signed the petition in support of recognition of the Union (see paragraph 12 above). Of those who had signed the petition, all were Union members (44.83% of the determined bargaining unit).   

20)       The Panel has considered carefully the Employer’s submission that the petition was “outdated and stale”, and that that there were concerns about its relevance given that it was conducted 8 months ago. The Panel is not satisfied that it has been presented with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the level of support disclosed by the petition within the determined bargaining unit, no longer exists. The Panel do not consider that the period of time between the petition and membership check is unduly long. Furthermore, the assessment that the Panel must make is one of likely support rather than a strict arithmetical measure – one of theoretical rather than concrete support.  The Panel considers that, in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. Only a modest increase beyond the level of support indicated by the level of membership is required. Taking all this into account, the Panel is of the view that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit would favour recognition.

21)       The Panel therefore considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the support check provides sufficient evidence of the views of workers in the determined bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union, as required by paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule.

6. Decision 

22)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 18 - 21 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid, and that the CAC is proceeding with the application.

Panel 

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Paul Moloney

15 August 2025