Decision

Access Complaint Decision

Updated 30 January 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1490(2025)

30 January 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON COMPLAINTS UNDER PARAGRAPH 27

The Parties:

Unite the Union

and

Surface Transforms plc

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 28 August 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Surface Transforms plc (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All hourly paid employees, From Goods In to Dispatch” based at Knowlsey Industrial Estate, Liverpool, L33 7UF. The Panel appointed to consider the application consisted of Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and Members Ms Julia Buck and Mr Christopher Burrows. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2)         By a decision dated 29 September 2025, the Panel accepted the Union’s application.

As the Panel was not satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union, it gave notice that it intended to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit would be asked whether they wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel, having considered the submissions on the form of ballot from both parties, decided that in this case the ballot should be a postal ballot. On 9 December 2025 the Parties were notified of the name of the Qualified Independent Person (QIP) appointed to conduct the ballot and the arrangements for the ballot.

3)         Once the parties have been notified of the appointment of the QIP the Employer must comply with five duties. The second of these duties (set out in paragraph 26(3) of Schedule 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 – “the Schedule” and “the Act”) is to give the Union such access to workers in the bargaining unit as is reasonable to enable the Union to inform the workers of the object of the ballot and to seek their support and opinions on the issues involved. After an informal meeting with the Panel Chair on 28 November 2025, the parties agreed the terms on which the Union would have access to the workers. This included three access meetings which would be held in person but with remote access also offered via Teams.

2. The Union’s complaint

4)         On 17 December 2025 the Union submitted a complaint that the Employer had failed to comply with its duties in relation to the ballot. The Union complaint stated:

“Failure to Comply with Access Agreement Arrangements

Under the agreed access arrangements, the employer was required to facilitate neutral access for the trade union and to distribute the union’s invitation materials. This did not occur.

Specifically:

• The employer’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) was positioned in the lobby and on the entrance stairs during the access meeting and was observed walking past windows overlooking the meeting room, visibly observing who was in attendance.

• This conduct created a perception that employee attendance was being monitored by senior management, contrary to the spirit and intent of the access agreement.

Failure to Distribute Trade Union Materials

The employer’s HR department failed to:

• Place the trade union’s agreed documentation on the notice board, and

• Email the trade union’s invitation to employees, as required under the access agreement.

Instead, the employer issued its own invitation, including an RSVP requirement, which was not agreed with the trade union. This unilateral action altered the agreed process and may have deterred employee participation.

Recording of the Access Meeting Without Consent

During the access meeting itself, a further serious breach occurred:

• The employer recorded the meeting without the knowledge or consent of the trade union official or the employees present.

• The recording only became known when the COO spoke via a speaker in the meeting room, stating: “It’s recording now.”

• There were 18 employees present, all of whom heard this statement. Following this announcement, no questions were raised by employees, which gives rise to concern that employees felt intimidated or inhibited from participating freely. Employees have since informed their trade union official that they are prepared to provide statements regarding the recording of the meeting and the circumstances in which it occurred, should the CAC require further evidence. This action directly contradicts CAC guidance regarding access meetings and confidentiality”.

3. Employers response

5)         In its written response to the complaint, the Employer stated, as far as is relevant:

“Surface Transforms acknowledges receipt of the concerns raised by UNITE and wishes to provide a clear and factual response. We strongly reject the allegations made and confirm that the company has complied fully with its obligations under the agreed access arrangements and CAC guidance.

Compliance with Access Arrangements

• The claim that our Chief Operating Officer (COO) monitored attendance is entirely inaccurate. The COO did not position himself to observe employees; as a senior officer, he is entitled to move freely within company premises. At no point did the company track or record attendance. Employees were explicitly informed that participation was voluntary and would have no impact on their employment.

Distribution of Trade Union Materials

• The company acted in good faith to ensure employees were informed. Access information was posted on notice boards prior to the meetings. The UNITE document was received on 15th December 2025 while our HR Advisor was on annual leave, making immediate distribution impossible. The only substantive difference in the UNITE document was the phrase “strongly encourages all members to attend.” Our communication was accurate, lawful, and aligned with CAC guidance.

• The RSVP function was not a requirement but a technical feature of Teams invitations to enable hybrid meetings. No employee was asked or required to confirm attendance.

Allegation of Recording Without Consent

• We categorically deny any recording of the access meetings. Surface Transforms provided a secure and confidential environment for UNITE to conduct its sessions. There is no evidence to support this allegation, and we will not accept statements that misrepresent the facts.

Commitment to Transparency and Employee Rights

• Surface Transforms remains committed to transparency, fairness, and the protection of employee rights. We have consistently communicated that attendance at access meetings is voluntary and confidential. We will continue to cooperate fully with CAC and provide any evidence required to demonstrate compliance.

6)         The Panel Chair, having reviewed the Union’s access complaint and the Employer’s response, decided a formal hearing was necessary to address and resolve the issues raised. In the meantime, the ballot was suspended until further notice. The virtual hearing was held on 16 January 2026. In advance of the hearing, The Union submitted three witness statements relating to the alleged recording of the meeting, one from Mr Bramwell, the Union’s representative and two from employees of the company. The Case Manager having confirmed that the employees were members of the bargaining unit, the Panel granted the Union’s request that their statements be redacted to protect their anonymity. All three statements were then cross copied to the Employer on 16 January 2026 with the Panel informing the parties that the Employer would have full opportunity to respond to the statements during the hearing. The names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision.

4. Statutory provisions

7)         If the CAC is satisfied that an employer has not fulfilled any of the duties imposed by paragraph 26, and the ballot has not been held, it can under paragraph 27(1) order the employer (a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order and (b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order.  There is a Code of Practice Access and unfair practices during recognition and derecognition ballots (the Access Code) issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (now Business and Trade). In proceedings before the CAC the Code is admissible in evidence, and any provision of the Code which the CAC considers relevant to any question “shall be taken into account in determining that question” (s 207(3) of the Act).

5. Perception of monitoring by COO

8)         The access agreement reached by the parties provided for the holding of three access meetings at 6am, 2pm and 10pm on 17 December 2025 at which the Union would be able to present its case. The Employer would send out Teams invitations so that anyone who wanted to attend remotely could do so.

9)         Mr Bramwell, explained that the Union’s concern was that immediately before the first access meeting the Chief Operating Officer (COO), Mr Laker, was outside the room provided for the meetings and had walked along the corridor several times whilst the meeting was in progress, creating a perception in those attending the meeting that attendance was being monitored by senior management, contrary to the spirit and intent of the access agreement. In reply, the Mr Laker confirmed that he had been asked by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr Johnson, to be in work early that day to ensure that all equipment to allow remote access to the meeting was ready for use during the access meetings, as neither Mr Johnson nor Ms Hepburn, the Employer’s Human Resources Adviser, were available at that time. (Mr Johnson took over this role for the afternoon and evening meetings.) Mr Laker explained that he had needed to walk past the meeting room to get to the maintenance office, which he needed to do to check whether there had been any developments during the night shift that had just ended. It was also the route he needed to take to the smoking area (he is a smoker) and the canteen.

10)       The Panel is satisfied that there was a reasonable explanation for Mr Laker’s presence around the meeting room. He was there as part of his normal movement around the Company’s premises, to and from the maintenance office, smoking area and canteen. He was around earlier than employees might have expected to see him because Mr Johnson had asked him to come in early to check that the technology was ready for the access meeting. Whilst employees at the meeting might have perceived him to be monitoring them, he was not. His presence did not amount to denying the Union reasonable access to the workers in the bargaining unit.

6. Provision of materials

11)       The parties had agreed that the Employer would place the date and times of the access meetings on the Company Notice Board, where they could be seen by all employees in the bargaining unit, and that the Employer would contact those employees in writing to provide details of the meetings, to include the date, times and purpose of the meetings and their right to decide whether they wanted to attend. Mr Bramwell confirmed that the Union’s concern was that the notice of the meetings had been put up by the Employer, and the Union’s document had not been used. The Union’s notice was on Union-headed paper and used more inclusive language, stating that UNITE members and non-members were welcome. The Union’s notice strongly encouraged all members to attend and said that non-members who wanted to be informed were also welcome. It had contained a QR code allowing a link through to the Union’s website. Ms Hepburn explained that she had put up the Employer’s notice on 12 December, the Friday before the meeting, not having received the Union’s document by then. She was on holiday on Monday 15 December when the Union’s notice was received. If she had been around, she would have put the Union’s notice on the noticeboard.

12)       The Panel compared the Union’s notice with the Employer’s notice. The Employer’s notice gives details of the meetings and states that the meetings are an opportunity for employees to hear directly from the Union about what union recognition could mean for them. It states that attendance is voluntary and an employee’s decision to attend or not attend will not affect their employment in any way. Whilst the Union’s notice is phrased in less neutral terms than that of the Employer and encourages and welcomes attendance, in the Panel’s view nothing in the Employer’s notice discourages employees from attending. The Panel is aware that paragraph 34 of the Access Code says that the Union may want to display written material at the place of work and that the Employer should provide a notice board for the union’s use where practicable. The Panel notes, however, that the complaint relates to the notice of the meeting, not written material more generally, and the parties’ agreement on access does not specify that the Union’s notice will be used to publicise the meetings.

13)       The Panel concludes that in all the circumstances the differences between the Employer’s notice and that of the Union are insufficient to amount to denying the Union reasonable access to the employees in the bargaining unit.

14)       Mr Bramwell said that employees were also concerned about the “RSVP” wording on the Employer’s Microsoft Teams invitation to the meetings. The Employer stated, and the Panel accepts, that this is a standard feature of Teams invitations and therefore in practice part-and-parcel of the parties’ agreement that attendance by Teams should be offered.

7. Recording of the meeting

15)       Turning to the Union’s concerns about the first access meeting being recorded, Mr Bramwell confirmed that shortly after the beginning of the meeting, which he was leading, he heard a voice saying, “It’s recording now”. In the Union’s initial complaint Mr Bramwell stated that the voice was that of Mr Laker. At the hearing he said that he thought the voice was that of Mr Laker, but he could not be sure. The other two witnesses’ statements submitted by the Union also stated that they heard “a voice” saying “it’s recording”. Mr Bramwell then pressed a button on a device in the room which stopped the recording.

16)       Mr Laker confirmed that he had not been invited to the Teams meeting giving remote access to the meeting and therefore could not have accessed or recorded any part of the meeting. The Employer confirmed that no IT staff had access to the meeting as they did not have an invitation and were not part of the bargaining unit. Ms Hepburn confirmed that she had issued the invitations to the meeting but did not arrive in the office, where she keeps her work computer, until 8.30am. The Employer did not know how or where any “it’s recording now” utterance could have originated but pointed out that anyone within the bargaining unit who had received an invitation to the meeting and could have said it.

17)       The Panel accepted the evidence of all three witness statements from the Union that a voice had been heard in the meeting room saying “it’s recording now” or words to that effect. From the evidence it has heard, however, the Panel is not satisfied that the voice was of someone within the Employer’s management team or someone authorised by the management team to record the meeting. All three of the management team most directly involved with the Union’s application for recognition have denied that they recorded, or authorised the recording, of the meeting. Everyone in the bargaining unit received an invitation to the meeting and any one of those people therefore had the ability to join and record it. As the Panel is not satisfied that the Employer was involved in recording the meeting, it does not accept that the Employer has failed to allow reasonable access to the employees in the bargaining unit for that reason.

8. Summary

18)       Having taken full account of the contents of the Union’s complaint, the Employer’s response and the evidence and submissions at the Hearing, the Panel concludes that the Union’s complaint that the Employer has failed to meet its duty to provide reasonable access is not well-founded. The Panel therefore confirms that the ballot will resume, and the parties will shortly be informed of the amended timetable. At the Hearing, both parties expressed a desire for the ballot process to be concluded without further delay. The Panel encourages the parties to co-operate with each other to achieve that objective.

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Ms Julia Buck

Mr Christopher Burrows

30 January 2026

9. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

Jamie Bramwell          -         Regional Officer, Unite the Union

For the Employer

Kevin Johnson            -          CEO 

Gareth Laker               -          COO

Jo Hepburn                  -          HR Advisor