Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 12 January 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1514(2025)

12 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

Moreco Group Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 27 November 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Moreco Group Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All Moreco Group Ltd employees working at or from the Milk and More Watford Depot (1 Odhams Trading Estate, Watford WD24 7RY save for those employed at Assistant Manager Level or above.”

2)         The location of the bargaining unit was given as Milk and More Watford Depot (1 Odhams Trading Estate, Watford WD24 7RY. The application was received by the CAC on 27 November 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 27 November 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 3 December 2025 which was copied to the Union.

3)         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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Julia Buck and Ms Joanna Brown. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

4)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 11 December 2025. The acceptance period was extended to 30 January 2026 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

5)         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

6)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 30 October 2025. The Union said that the Employer responded on 13 November 2025 declining the request. The Union attached a copy of the letter dated 30 October 2025 to its application.

7)        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. The Union said that it had requested Acas assistance and made the Employer aware that the Union was willing to engage with Acas.

8)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 1000. The Union stated that there were 38 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer did not agree 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 said it had 16 members in the proposed bargaining unit and that it would be happy to submit to a membership check. 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 “list of petition favouring recognition will be sent to CAC - Number of effective petition signatures 23 of which 15 are not Unite members.”

9)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “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 warehouse functions within a single workplace. All these employees fall under the same line management structure.” The Union said that the bargaining unit had not 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, “No, National Recognition ceased on 25th October 2025.”

10)       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 27 November 2025.

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

11)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 30 October 2025. The Employer said that it had responded on 12 November 2025 declining the request. The Employer attached a copy of the email to its response document.

12)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 27 November 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 that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union “all Moreco Group Limited employees working at or from the Milk and More Erith Watford (1 Odhams Trading Estate, Watford WD24 7RY) save for those employed at Assistant Manager Level or above,” was not an appropriate bargaining unit. The Employer said that a single depot was too small a unit to be workable. The Employer said, “that whilst there was a collective agreement prior to October 2025 under a voluntary recognition agreement (with Unite and USDAW), there is no collective bargaining currently undertaken elsewhere in the organisation.” The Employer went on to say that it was undesirable and inefficient to have a small, fragmented bargaining unit as this would not be compatible with effective management. The Employer said that collective bargaining would be impossible to manage at this local level and would result in anomalies across the organisation in relation to pay, and terms and conditions of staff in comparable roles which were currently consistent and standardised across the organisation for each role (subject to a few local variations for location allowances).

13)       The Employer stated that it had 1077 workers which included head office staff. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and said, “our current figure is 44. The difference likely relates to out-of-date information/ delays in processing new starters/ leavers.” The Employer said 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 answered, “The last data we had (payroll deductions for membership fees while we recognised this union) indicated 13 members.”

14)       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 said “we do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether a majority of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition. We do not consider that the Union would have the support of the majority of workers in a national bargaining unit. The Union was given the opportunity to canvass worker support for recognition within the workplace for a 6-month period prior to the termination of the voluntary recognition agreement but was unable to gather the necessary support to make an application on a national basis.”

15)       The Employer did not respond to the question on whether it was aware of any previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, and whether it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Summary of the Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the application

16)       In an email dated 4 December 2025 the Union said that it had no comments at this stage.

6. The membership and support check

17)       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) and also a copy of its petition. 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 8 December 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

18)       The information requested from the Union and the Employer was received by the CAC on 10 December 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

19)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 44 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 19 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 17 a membership level of 38.64%.

20)       The Union also provided a paper petition which consisted of two pages with columns on each page headed, “Print Name”, “Job Title”, “Signature” and “Date.” Above the columns on each page the following was written:

“PETITION IN SUPPORT OF UNION RECOGNITION

Milk and More – MoreCo Group Watford

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.

This 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.

I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays.”

A link to the Union’s privacy policy was also provided.

21)       The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 22 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 50.00% of the proposed bargaining unit. 11 of the petition signatories were members of the Union (50.00%) and 11 (50.00%), of the petition signatories, were non-members. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 15 December 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 18 December 2025.

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

22)       The Employer said in a letter dated 18 December 2025 “I refer to your letter of 15th December 2025 requesting our comments on the membership and support check data you have provided us with. It is not clear to us that the application is admissible because we have concerns over the data. In this depot, we consider that we have very good relations between local management and the workers located there. While obviously we appreciate that we would not necessarily be aware of such matters, our understanding was that support for the Union was not widespread, and we have had no suggestion that any significant proportion of the workers were in favour of union recognition. Therefore, we ask:

• In paragraph 1 of your report you state that the Panel requested “independent checks of the level of union membership in the proposed bargaining unit”. Which independent body conducted these checks?

• Please can you provide the date as of which the information in the excel spreadsheet provided by the Union referenced in paragraph 2 is accurate.

• Please can you provide a completely redacted copy of all pages of the petition submitted by the Union, and evidence of the date the last signature was obtained. We ask this because we are not aware of any petition being advertised at the depot or circulated among workers there.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.”

23)       On 18 December 2025 the Case Manager responded to the questions raised by the Employer re iterating how membership and support checks are undertaken and how the information provided is treated by the CAC. The Employer was referred back to the report prepared as a result of the membership and support check and the letters dated 8 December 2025 and 15 December 2025. In an email dated 19 December the Employer thanked the Case Manager for the clarification and did not seek to put forward any additional comments.

8. Summary of the Union’s comments following the membership and support check

24)       The Union in an email dated 16 December 2025 said, “Unite can show that we have support at the Watford Depot and that the thresholds for the application to be accepted have been met.”

9. Considerations

25)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 5 above are satisfied.  The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

26)       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)

27)       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. References to the bargaining unit are to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union. This is the unit against which the admissibility and validity tests are applied. In their respective responses detailed above the parties have provided a lot of detail on the arguments surrounding the proposed bargaining unit. Whether or not the bargaining unit is appropriate will only be decided if the application is accepted by the CAC.

28)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17 to 21 above) showed that 38.64% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

29)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 28 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)

30)       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 38.64% when taken with the 50.00% of non-union members signing the petition 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.

31)       The Panel has also considered the Employer’s submissions as outlined in paragraph 22 above. Petitions are circulated widely amongst workers in a proposed bargaining unit and are not restricted to members alone. Non-members can sign a petition to support a Union being recognised without committing thereafter to becoming a member of that union for their signature to count. The CAC has not received contact from any workers in the proposed bargaining unit to say that they are no longer supportive of recognition and wished to withdraw their signature.

10. Decision

32)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 25-31 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Ms Julia Buck

Ms Joanna Brown

12 January 2026