Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 15 December 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1508(2025)

15 December 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

Moreco Group Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 13 November 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Moreco Group Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All Moreco Group Limited employees working at or from the Milk and More, Erith Depot save for those employed at Assistant Manager level or above” based at Highland Farm, Brook Street, Erith, Kent, DA8 1DY.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 13 November 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 20 November 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 Paul Swann, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Rob Lummis and Mr Brian Hooper. 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 should be accepted because it is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 27 November 2025. The period was extended until 18 December 2025 in order to allow time for the Panel to consider all the evidence and reach a decision.

3. The Union’s application

5)         In its application the Union said that it had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 29 October 2025.  The Union confirmed that the Employer responded on 13 November 2025 denying its request for recognition.

6)         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. The Union stated that it had requested Acas assistance and was willing to engage with Acas.

7)         According to the Union, the Employer employed 1000 workers with 33 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit.  The Union stated that it had 18 members within the proposed bargaining unit. 

8)         When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated they had a petition favouring recognition. The Union confirmed that the petition had a number of effective signatures of which some were not union members.

9)         When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that this was a discrete and clearly identifiable group of employees who shared the same terms and conditions of employment and who carry out similar roles. The Union confirmed that all the employees fell under the same line management structure.

10)       The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. When asked whether there was any existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the bargaining unit, the Union stated no, and that the National Recognition ceased on 25 October 2025. The Union confirmed it had sent a copy of its application to the Employer on 13 November 2025.

11)       Finally, the Union said there had been no previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and there was no existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

4. The Employer’s response to the application

12)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 29 October 2025. It had declined the Union’s request in an email dated 12 November 2025, the Employer confirmed that the request was denied.

13)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 13 November 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”.

14)       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 “The unit proposed by the Union is all Moreco Group Limited employees working at or from the Milk and More Erith Depot (Highland Farm, Brook Street, Erith, Kent DA8 1DY) save for those employed at Assistant Manager Level or above. It is not agreed that this would be an appropriate bargaining unit. A single depot is too small a unit to be workable. While 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. It is undesirable and inefficient to have a small, fragmented bargaining unit as this would not be compatible with effective management. 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 are currently consistent and standardised across the organisation for each role (subject to a few local variations for location allowances)”.

15)     When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer stated it had not requested Acas to assist.

16)       When asked to state the number of workers employed, the Employer confirmed there were 1077 workers, this number included head office staff.

17)       The Employer was asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and answered by saying no. On being asked about the reasons for the difference, the Employer stated that its current figures were 35 and the difference related to out-of-date information/delays in processing new starters/leavers. The Employer said that the bargaining unit would not include Directors or Head of Marketing due to their running of company-wide management roles.

18)       The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated: “The last data we had (payroll deductions for membership fees while we recognised this union) indicated 15 members”.

19)       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 stated, “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”.

20)       Finally, the Employer did not respond 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 once again did not answer this question.

5. The membership and support check.        

21)       To assist 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 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 it 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 24 November 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

22)       The information from the Union was received on 26 November 2025 and from the Employer on 25 November 2025.

23)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 36 workers. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 24 names.

24)       The Union also provided a petition, which contained 24 names/signatures.  The petition consisted of 4 A4 sheets with 8 columns with the headings requesting: Name, Signature, Mobile, Email, Workplace, Unite member, Keep in touch email and Keep in touch phone. The Petition was set out as follows:

“Milk & More- Recognition Petition

We, the undersigned employees of Milk & More are calling for the formal recognition of Unite the Union as our representatives for collective bargaining purposes. (The proposed bargaining unit is for employees employed by Milk & More who were covered under the previous collective bargaining arrangements with Unite and USDAW which will be terminated with effect from the 6th of Oct 2025). None of your details will be shared with your employer, however, by signing this petition, you confirm your support for the union campaign to be recognised by your employer and that your details will be used to further this aim”.

25)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 15, a membership level of 41.67%.  The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 24 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the number of names/signatures not appearing on Employer’s list were 2, leaving 22 signatures which represented 61.11% of the proposed bargaining unit. From the petition 12 signatories were members of the Unions and 10, that is 27.78% of the petition signatories, were non-members. 

26)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 26 November 2025 and the parties’ comments invited. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership and support check

27)       In an email dated 27 November 2025 the Union stated “After reviewing the findings, we respectfully submit that our application for recognition should be accepted, and we believe the evidence meets the necessary criteria set out by the CAC. The union has demonstrated significant support within the proposed bargaining unit. There are 36 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, and the union has 15 members, representing 41.67% of the total workforce in the unit. While the membership percentage is below the 50% threshold for automatic recognition, the union’s ability to show substantial membership and support, particularly given the subsequent petition, demonstrates a strong foundation for recognition. In addition to the membership check, the petition results clearly show overwhelming support for union recognition within the bargaining unit: Of the 36 workers in the unit, 22 workers signed the petition, representing 61.11% of the total workforce, indicating clear support. Given the combined results of the membership check and petition support, it is clear that the union enjoys significant support from both union members and non-union workers. We believe this evidence meets the statutory requirements for application to be accepted and request that a ballot”.

28)       In a letter dated 2 December 2025 the Employer stated, “I refer to your letter of 26th November 2025 requesting out comments on the membership and support check data you have provided us with. It is clear that that the application is not admissible, if for no other reason than the CAC has no data on which to base a decision under paragraph 36(1)(b). The evidence that Unite purport to rely on for the purposes of this paragraph is a petition. However, that petition refers to a completely different bargaining unit. We note that the text of the petition used by the Union says as follows: “(The proposed bargaining unit is for employees employed by Milk & More who were covered under the previous collective bargaining arrangements with Unite and USDAW which will be terminated with effect from the 6th of Oct 2025)”. This is misleading as it suggests that the petition is in support of the same bargaining unit as existed under the previous formal agreement, whereas this is obviously not the case as this agreement covered all depots operated by Milk & More. We are happy to provide you with a copy of this agreement if required. Paragraph 36 is clear. “a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union (or unions) as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit” (our emphasis) We refer you to the CAC’s own guide to statutory recognition, which says in the context of relying on petitions: “The value and weight to be attached to various forms of evidence may vary, depending, for example on the circumstances in which that evidence has been obtained, when it was obtained and the wording of the petition that may be submitted” (our emphasis). This is not just semantics. For example, the previous national level bargaining unit was represented by two unions – Unite and USDAW – but this is an application solely on behalf of Unite. Moreover, a petition that says, in effect, ‘let’s go back to what we had before’ is very different from one that says, ‘let’s propose a whole new arrangement’, which is the case here. In addition, we are aware of no organised or comprehensive communication concerning the purpose of the petition being given to the workers by the Union, and local management has received no questions from these workers during this time, or even any comments reflecting understanding of the significance of what a successful application would mean. Finally, we have some concerns over the data. In both depots, 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 (other than the local union representative) 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 in one of the two depots you have made this request in respect of, Erith, as far as local management was aware, the petition had no signatures whatsoever, and in respect of the other, Ipswich, there were only a minimum number of signatures”.

7. Additional comments sought from the Union

29)       The Panel chair directed that the CAC case manager cross copied the parties comments and sought further comments from the Union.

30)       The Union in a letter dated 8 December 2025 stated, “I refer to the employer’s letter of 2nd December 2025. Within that letter, the employer has asserted that the Union has presented no data on which to base a decision under paragraph 36(1)(b). The employer has noted that the petition that the Union has relied upon supported continued voluntary recognition for collective bargaining purposes across all Milk & More depots, following the employer’s plans to end that arrangement earlier this year. I replicate the full text of the petition which has been the subject of the employer’s challenge below:

“We, the undersigned employees of Milk & More are calling for the formal recognition of Unite the Union as our representatives for collective purposes. [The proposed bargaining unite is for employees employed by Milk & More who were covered under the previous collective bargaining arrangements with Unite and USDAW which will be terminated with effect from the 6th Oct 2025]. None of your details will be shared with your employer, however, by signing this petition, you confirm your support for the union campaign to be recognised by your employer and that your details will be used to further this aim.”

It is correct that the Union now seeks recognition at specified individual depots. However, the Union avers that the petition relied upon, in showing support for collective bargaining (albeit across a wider bargaining unit) provides evidence that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining units would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. We consider that is highly unlikely that workers in the proposed bargaining unit would only support recognition if this were pursued on behalf of a different bargaining unit and respectfully assert that 36(1)(b) has therefore been satisfied”.

8. Considerations

31)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 above are satisfied. The Panel has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

32)       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 and that it was made in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Schedule.  The remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

33)       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 41.67% 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)

34)       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 Unions as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Case Manager’s check of the Unions petition against the list of 36 workers provided by the Employer indicated that 12 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 33.33%. The petition was signed by 10 non-members amounting to 27.78% of the total. The wording on the petition is set out in paragraph 24 above.  The Panel believes the proposition to be clear and unambiguous.  The call for the Employer to be formally recognised for collective bargaining purposes for the Union would leave the signatory in no doubt what they were being asked to support.

35)       Given that 33.33% of the bargaining unit are members of the Unions and that more than 60.00% of the workers signed the Unions’ petition in support of recognition, the Panel is satisfied 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 Unions.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Mr Rob Lummis

Mr Brian Hooper

15 December 2025