Decision

Form of Ballot Decision

Updated 27 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1490(2025)

27 October 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON FORM OF BALLOT

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 Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 2 September 2025.

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.

3)         By a decision dated 29 September 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. As the Employer had stated in its response to the application that it agreed the proposed bargaining unit, the CAC Panel then had to decide whether a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. If a Panel is not so satisfied, then it must arrange for the holding of a ballot. If a Panel is so satisfied, then it must declare the Union to be recognised without a ballot unless one of the three qualifying conditions, as specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule, are fulfilled. Accordingly, the Case Manager wrote to the parties on 29 September 2025, asking whether the Union claimed that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and so should be granted recognition without a ballot.

2. Union comments on majority membership

4)         The Union’s response was received by the CAC on 1 October 2025. It stated that it believed it had secured the level of support necessary for recognition within the proposed bargaining unit: 41.25% of workers within the bargaining unit were confirmed as current Union members and an additional 17.5% of workers who were not Union members had signed declarations in support of the Union being granted statutory recognition to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. This brought the total level of support to 58.75% of workers within the bargaining unit and as this figure constituted majority support, it submitted that the statutory criteria for automatic recognition had been satisfied.

5)         The Case Manager pointed out that the membership check carried out on 11 September 2025 had established that Union membership within the bargaining unit stood at 41.25%. The Union was asked to confirm whether it had evidence that the level of membership had since risen to over 50%. The Case Manager requested that, if such evidence existed, the Union should indicate the nature of that evidence so that the Panel could determine whether a further membership check was required. The Case Manager advised that, if no such evidence was available, arrangements would need to be made for a ballot to be conducted.

6)         The Union responded on 14 October 2025. It stated that two additional people had recently joined the Union within the job roles included in the bargaining unit. Assuming that to be the case, based on the figures in the membership check the Union still had only 43.75% membership in the bargaining unit.

7)         On 15 October 2025, the Panel, not being satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit were members of the Union, gave notice in accordance with paragraph 23(2) of the Schedule 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 advised the parties that it would wait until the end of the notification period of ten working days, as specified in paragraph 24(5), before arranging a secret ballot. The parties were also asked for their views on the form of the ballot.

8)         The notification period under paragraph 24(5) of the Schedule ended on 28 October 2025. The parties did not notify the CAC under paragraph 24(2) that they did not want a ballot to be held.

3. Employer’s submissions on the form of ballot

9)          By email to the Case Manager dated 21 October 2025, the Employer stated that a postal ballot was its preferred method for conducting the union recognition vote within the organisation, for the following reasons:

9.1 Minimisation of Workplace Disruption: The Employer stated that, as a manufacturing organisation, its operations relied on a continuous workflow where production was key and a workplace ballot could interrupt these processes, potentially affecting output and efficiency.

9.2 Logistical Practicality: The Employer noted that the workforce operated across varying shifts, including night shifts and continental working patterns and a postal ballot would ensure that all eligible employees could participate without the need for complex coordination or scheduling.

9.3 Fairness, Impartiality, and Inclusivity: The Employer argued that a postal ballot would allow team members to vote privately from home, thereby reducing the risk of undue influence or pressure from colleagues or management and this supported a more genuine and transparent voting process. The Employer said a postal ballot would also ensure that team members who were absent from the workplace due to illness, leave, or other personal reasons could still participate.

4. Union’s submissions

10)       By letter to the Case Manager dated 20 October 2025, the Union requested that the ballot be conducted as a workplace ballot for all employees within the agreed bargaining unit. The Union further stated that, to ensure full engagement and accessibility, it sought the opportunity to speak with all employees within the bargaining unit during the ballot period.

5. Considerations

11)       When deciding the form of the ballot (which might be workplace, postal or a combination of the two methods), the CAC must take into account the following considerations, specified in paragraphs 25(5) and (6) of the Schedule:

(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace;

(b) costs and practicality; and

(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate.

12)       The Panel, having considered the submissions on the form of ballot from both parties, has decided that in this case the ballot should be fully postal. This decision was based in particular on the potential impact that a workplace ballot might have on the Employer’s continuous production and the difficulties that might arise in ensuring full participation in a workplace ballot, given the Employer’s shift system. Although the Union has said it wants a workplace ballot, it has not given its reasons for that view. In addition, the Employer has previously alleged that workers were pressured into signing the petition in support of recognition. Whilst it provided no evidence of that pressure to the CAC, a postal ballot would ensure that no argument could be raised that pressure was applied to those voting.

6. Decision

13)       The decision of the Panel is that the ballot be a fully postal ballot.

14)       The name of the Qualified Independent Person appointed to conduct the ballot will be notified to the parties shortly, as will the period within which the ballot is to be held.

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Ms Julia Buck

Mr Christopher Burrows

27 October 2025