Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 27 February 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1520(2026)

27 February 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

Natures Grub Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 22 January 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Natures Grub Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All employees at Natures Grub Limited up to and including supervisors”.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 22 January 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 27 January 2026 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 Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham and Mr Paul Moloney. 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 5 February 2026.  The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 12 March 2026.

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 5 January 2026 via email. The Employer did not respond to the Unions letter of 5 January 2026, as its official response had already been submitted on the 18th of December 2025. The Employer, in its response which was undated but confirmed by the Employer as having been sent on 18 December 2025 stated, “After careful consideration, we must inform you that Natures Grub Limited does not agree to recognise Unite the Union for the purposes outlined in your request”.

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 41 and 36 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 12 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 they have, “Petition in support of recognising Unite for collective bargaining purposes signed by 19 staff members within the bargaining unit – 52.78%”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit as “This bargaining unit covers all staff that work within Natures Grub but excludes Managers/Directors of the company”. 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 21 January 2026^{[footnote 1]}.  

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, “The 17th of December 2025, this request was incorrectly addressed to an alternative company “Facility Management UK Limited”. We acknowledged that this was meant for us & sent our official response on 18th December 2025. We then received an amended / corrected request on 5th January 2026, attachment 003, we did not respond to this, as our official response had already been submitted on the 18th of December 2025”.

12)       The Employer said that it had not received a copy of the application form from the Union and that it received an email from the Union on 21 January 2026 with an attachment confirming that the CAC application and supporting evidence had been copied to the Employer on that date. The Employer stated that no application or supporting evidence had been submitted to it.

13)       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, an agreement on the bargaining unit had not been made, the bargaining unit was already decided by Unite”.

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 union has proposed that only supervisors & below are included in the bargaining unit, we have a number of tiers within our company, I believe that all levels should be represented within the bargaining unit,”.

15)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No”.

16)       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. The Employer said that “The application from the union states that their proposed bargaining unit of supervisors and below totals 36 workers, the correct number in this proposed unit would be 39 workers, we would argue that based on our company structure, this should be a minimum of 42 workers”.

17)       When asked to give the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference, the Employer stated “I believe the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit is less that suggested, one member of staff that was a union member left the company on the 23rd January 2026, several other workers have openly discussed that they have cancelled their membership and / or direct debit to the union.”

18)       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.

19)       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, “It believes the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit is less that suggested, one member of staff that was a union member left the company on the 23rd January 2026, several other workers have openly discussed that they have cancelled their membership and / or direct debit to the union”.

20)       The Employer, when asked if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, to indicate its reasons for taking this view, with any available evidence. The Employer in response stated, “As per my response on the 18th of December and the supporting witness statements, I believe that any previous internal ballots that indicated support were done in a misleading and coercive way, for this reason, I believe that an independent ballot must be carried out by yourselves”.

21)       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. Union’s comments on the Employers Response

22)       The Panel Chair, having reviewed the Employer’s response, requested that it be cross copied to the Union and that the Union be invited to provide any further comments. In particular, the Panel Chair was seeking the Union’s comments regarding the Employer not receiving the Unions application. Accordingly, a letter was sent by the CAC to the Union on 30 January 2026 inviting a response.

23)       The Union in a letter dated 6 February 2026 stated that in the timeline the Employer had submitted, “Natures Grub acknowledge the application was sent on 23 January 2026 as it had been ‘missed’ off the email. This was not done maliciously but was an error when attaching files to the email”.

24)       From the Union’s response, it appeared that that the application had been sent to the Employer on 23 January 2026. Therefore, the Panel Chair concluded that there was no need to seek any further comments from the Employer in relation to the Union’s response and agreed to proceed to a membership check.

6. The check of membership and support

25)       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 10 February 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

26)       The information requested from the Employer was received on 10 February 2026 and from the Union on 13 February 2026.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

27)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 42 workers. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 11 names.

28)       The Union also provided a petition, which contained 19 names/signatures.  The petition consisted of 2 A4 sheets with 5 columns with the headings showing: Submission Date, First Name, Last Name, Job Title and Signature. The Petition was set out as follows:

“Petition for Unite the Union to be recognised at Nature’s Grub

We the undersigned at Nature’s Grub wish to have Unite the Union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining, for those up to and including Supervisory level, around our pay, terms and conditions. Unite the Union aims to not to disrupt business, but to contribute to organisational success, which in turn provides job security for all staff, member or non-member.”

29)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 10, a membership level of 23.81%.  The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 19 people. This represented 45.24% of the proposed bargaining unit. Ten signatories were members of the Union and nine, that is 21.43% of the petition signatories, were non-members.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially.

30)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 16 February 2026 and the parties’ comments invited.

7. Parties’ comments on the membership check

31)       In a letter dated 17 February 2026 the Employer stated, “ Whilst I accept that union members constitute at least 10 per cent of the proposed bargaining unt, there is evidence provided, that there is not enough support for recognition of the Union by a majority of the bargaining unit, for this reason, along with the following points, I ask that the application be refused.  The data provided by the Union is outdated, one worker, who was also a union member was included in the list provided by the Union, this worker left the business several weeks ago, this member would have also been counted in the petition signatures.  I am unaware of the date in which the petition was completed, I assume it was some time ago, I believe that the feeling toward the Union has diminished massively in the last few weeks.  I believe the non-members will not vote in favour of recognition, many have expressed concerns in the way Union membership has been handled and are disappointed by the behaviour of both, the proposed Union rep and Union official.  The whole process has been a very poor experience, error after error from the Union official, not adding fundamental attachments to emails, gross breaches of GDPR on more than one occasion, disclosure of 2 other companies going through the same process, no diligence or attention to detail at any point. I believe, as this will be the Union official that would be overseeing the company, any credibility for discussions is non-existent, making the whole future process untenable”.

32)       In a letter dated 19 February 2026 the Union stated, “I can confirm that the membership number of 10 is correct, I did not realise that one member had left Natures Grub so they should have been removed from the list presented to you. Apologies for my error there. I would like to comment on the number within the proposed bargaining unit. I believe this to be 40 (including the current vacant position) if the organisational chart that the company sent was correct. I believe there are 33 general operatives and 7 supervisors. If this is correct the figures would be: Membership density (10 of 40) = 25%, Petition signed (19 of 40) = 47.5%. Can it be noted that when we submitted the CAC application, we were not of the belief that the bargaining unit would include office staff. Although we are happy to accept them within the proposed bargaining unit this has obviously reduced our petition percentage to under the 51% that we previously had.”

8. Considerations

33)       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. 

34)       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 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)

35)       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 29 above showed that 23.81% 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)

36)       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 42 workers provided by the Employer indicated that 19 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 45.24%. The petition was signed by 9 non-members amounting to 21.43% of the total. The wording on the petition is set out in paragraph 28 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.

37)       In the proposed bargaining unit, 23.81% of workers were union members, whilst 45.246% signed the union’s petition supporting recognition, including 21.43% of the workers who were not members of the Union.

38)       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.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Paul Moloney

27 February 2026

---

1. On 6 February 2026, the Union emailed the CAC Case Manager confirming that it had sent a copy of its application to the Employer on 23 January 2026 at 11:12am ↩