Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 29 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1490(2025)

29 September 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

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 CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 28 August 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 2 September 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 Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Julia Buck and Mr Christopher Burrows. 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 11 September 2025. 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 extends the acceptance period to 9 October 2025.

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 11 August 2025. The Union confirmed that the Employer responded on 24 August 2025 as follows: “We regret to inform you that we are declining your request for voluntary recognition at this time”. Letters from the Union and the Employer were attached to the application.

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”. 

7)         According to the Union, the Employer employed 150 workers with 75 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 52 members within the proposed bargaining unit. Asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union said that it had a “Written agreement on bargaining unit accepted by Surface Transform CEO. Number of union members in bargaining unit 52 at 28/08/2025. Details of members can be submitted and provided directly to the CAC at a later point”.

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 that it had a petition from the workforce which could be provided directly to the CAC at a later point.

9)         When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that it had agreed in discussions with the Employer’s CEO that the “Bargaining Unit” consisted of all hourly paid employees “From Goods In to Dispatch”. The bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer.

10)       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

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 11 August 2025. It had declined the Union’s request in a letter dated 24 August 2025, stating: “Thank you for your email dated 11/08/2025, in which you seek voluntary recognition. After careful consideration and having understood the bargaining unit definition, we regret to inform you that we are declining your request for voluntary recognition at this time. The reason for our decision is that we believe formal recognition is not necessary as existing structures are already providing adequate representation and dialogue. We have well established systems of communication with our employees and with you Unite the Union. These channels of communication have and continue to be effective in addressing employee concerns and provide a mechanism for input and feedback. We respect Unite the Union’s right to support its members, and we will continue to engage with you as needed. Should you wish to request statutory recognition with the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) we would request that you inform the Company, as soon as possible of your application and send the Company a copy of your application and any supporting documents”.

12)       When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form, the Employer stated it had not received a copy of the application form from the Union. The Union sent the CAC an email evidencing that it had indeed sent a copy of its application to the Employer, at 13.49 on 28 August 2025. A copy of this email was sent again to the Employer on 4 September 2025, after which the Employer confirmed it was happy to proceed with the application.

13)       When asked if it agreed the proposed bargaining unit the Employer confirmed that it did.

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that ACAS should be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”. When asked to state the number of workers employed by the Employer it confirmed “As at 02/09/2025 we employ 175 employees”.

15)       When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application the Employer answered “No”. When asked the reasons for any difference, the Employer stated there were 81 workers in the unit.

16)       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: “We disagree with the Union’s estimate of the membership in the proposed bargaining unit because we have no evidence to support the numbers stated”.

17)       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 have received no evidence to suggest that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition”.

18)       Finally, the Employer stated “No” 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 answered “N/A”.

5. The membership and support check       

19)       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 5 September 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

20)       The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 9 September 2025 and from the Employer on 10 September 2025.

21)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 80 workers. It confirmed that one worker had left its employment on 3 September 2025. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 51 names. The Union also provided a petition, which contained 33 names/signatures. The petition consisted of three A4 sheets with three headings: “Name (Printed)”, “Signature” and “Date”. The Petition was set out as follows:

“Petition for the Recognition of Unite the Union at Surface Transforms for Collective Bargaining Rights.

 We the undersigned, support the formal recognition of Unite the Union by Surface Transforms for the purposes of collective bargaining.

We believe that all employees deserve fair representation improved working conditions, and a stronger collective voice in discussions on pay, hours and workplace policies.

By signing below, we call on Surface Transforms to formally recognise Unite the Union and engage in good faith negotiations on behalf of its members”.

22)       In her report on the results of the membership and support check, the Case Manager assumed that the Employer’s figure for the number of employees in the bargaining unit was correct. In identifying the union members in the bargaining unit, she limited these to the names common to both the Employer’s and the Union’s list. On that basis, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 33. That gave a membership level of 41.25%. The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 33 workers but six of those did not appear on the Employer’s list of employees in the bargaining unit. Of the 27 that were on that list, 13 were members of the Union and 14 were non-members. That meant that 17.5% of the bargaining unit had signed the petition even though they were not union members.

23)       The Case Manager’s report was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 11 September 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership and support check

24)       In an email dated 12 September 2025 the Union stated: “In accordance with your request and the requirements set out in paragraph 36 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, I am writing to provide comments on the membership and support check in relation to the proposed bargaining unit. We note the following key figures:

• Union membership constitutes 41.25% of the proposed bargaining unit, which clearly exceeds the 10% minimum threshold set out in paragraph 36(1)(a).

• Furthermore, 17.5% of non-union members within the bargaining unit are shown to be in support of recognition.

These figures indicate that a total of 58.75% of workers within the bargaining unit either belong to the union or have shown support for its recognition. On this basis, it would appear reasonable to conclude that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition, satisfying the requirement under paragraph 36(1)(b). We have no further comments to submit at this time regarding the comparison, and we acknowledge the data provided in the membership and support check”.

25)       In a letter dated 16 September 2025 the Employer said: “We have reviewed the report on union membership and petition support within the proposed bargaining unit and would like to submit the following comments in relation to the admissibility tests under paragraph 36(1) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:

Paragraph 36(1)(a): Union Membership Threshold:

We acknowledge that the report confirms that the union does meet the minimum 10% membership threshold required under paragraph 36(1)(a).

• Total number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit: 80;

• Number of union members confirmed within the bargaining unit: 33; and

• Proportion of union members in the bargaining unit: 41.25%.

Paragraph 36(1)(b): Likelihood of Majority Support:

We do [consider] however, taking into the needs of all of our employees, based on the information provided to us, that the union does not meet the requirement under paragraph 36(1)(b), which requires that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. Importantly we have evidence to suggest that our team members were being pressured to sign the petition by Union members.

The petition submitted by the union shows:

• Number of valid petition signatures from workers in the bargaining unit: 27; and

• Proportion of workers in the bargaining unit who signed the petition: 33.75%.

This figure falls significantly short of the 50% majority threshold required to demonstrate likely support for recognition.

Furthermore:

• Only 13 of the petition signatories are confirmed union members;

• 14 signatories are non-members, which might suggest limited engagement or understanding of the implications of formal recognition;

• 18 union members listed by the union do not appear on the employer’s list of workers in the bargaining unit, raising concerns about the accuracy of the union’s membership data; and

• The union has not provided any further evidence (e.g. surveys, communications, or endorsements) to demonstrate broader support beyond the petition.

In addition:

• Approximately two-thirds of the union members have not requested union recognition, as only 13 of the 33 confirmed members signed the petition; and

• Approximately two-thirds of the overall bargaining unit have not recognised the union, with only 27 out of 80 workers signing the petition.

These figures further reinforce our position that there is insufficient evidence to support the likelihood of majority support for union recognition within the proposed bargaining unit.

Based on the data provided and the statutory criteria, we believe that the union has not demonstrated that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to favour recognition. Therefore, we respectfully request that the application should not be considered admissible under paragraph 36(1)(b).

7. Additional comments from the parties

26)       The Panel chair directed that the Case Manager cross copy the parties comments and sought further comments.

27)       The Union in a letter dated 18 September 2025 stated: “Unite believes that we have clearly met the statutory threshold for recognition. In particular, we have satisfied the 10% membership requirement within the proposed bargaining unit. Furthermore, we can demonstrate that a clear majority of 58.75% of workers in the proposed unit support recognition of the union. This figure is made up of 41.25% confirmed union members and an additional 17.50% of non-members who have signed a petition in support of recognition. This level of support highlights a strong appetite for union representation not only among existing members but also from non-members within the workforce. Our position is fully supported by the membership report previously submitted. We trust that the Commission will take these facts into account in considering our application. We remain committed to engaging constructively throughout this process and are happy to provide any further evidence required”.

28)       In an email dated 23 September 2025 the Employer said that six petition signatories did not appear on the Employer’s list of workers in the bargaining unit. This raised further concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the petition as a measure of genuine support.  

8. Considerations

29)       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. 

30)       From the information set out above, 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)

31)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a), 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 22 above showed that 41.25% 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)

32)       Under paragraph 36(1)(b), 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. 

33)       In summary, the Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, those workers in the bargaining unit who are members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining (41.25%), as would those non-union members in the bargaining unit who signed the petition (17.50%). That means that 58.75% of the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition.

34)       The Employer stated that it had evidence that non-members were being pressured to sign the petition by Union members, but it did not provide that evidence to the Panel. The Employer suggested that the signatories to the petition who are not union members have limited engagement or understanding of the implications of formal recognition. In the absence of evidence to support that suggestion, and given the clear wording of the petition, the Panel does not accept it. The Panel also does not accept that any reliable conclusions can be drawn from the fact that only 13 of the 33 union members signed the petition. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a worker’s union membership provides a legitimate indicator that they are likely to favour recognition of the Union, whether or not they signed the petition. The Panel accepts that 18 individuals that the Union identified as members in the bargaining unit were not on the Employer’s list of workers in the bargaining unit. That is not sufficient, in the Panel’s view, to establish that the Union’s records are inaccurate when it comes to identifying whether the individuals that the Employer accepts as being within the bargaining unit are its members. The Panel also accepts that six of the signatories to the petition were not on the Employer’s list of employees in the bargaining unit, but it does not consider that this means that the petition cannot be relied upon as evidence of support for recognition from the signatories who were on the Employer’s list.

35)       On the basis of the evidence provided to the CAC in this case, 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.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Ms Julia Buck

Mr Christopher Burrows

29 September 2025