Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 30 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1494(2025)

 30 October 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

Trescal Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 16 September 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Trescal Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Calibration engineers or technicians, admin/CSR and/or logistics/stores operators.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “On site”. The application was received by the CAC on 16 September 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of 17 September 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 29 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 Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr David Cadger, and Mr Brian Hooper. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 30 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 ends the acceptance period on 30 October 2025.

2. Issues

4)         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.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union explained that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 23 June 2025. The Employer responded by letter of 2 July 2025. In this letter the Employer had informed the Union that after careful consideration of the Union’s request, it had decided not to grant recognition to the Union at this time. The Employer said that it believed there were sufficient existing mechanisms for employee representation and communication, such as regular employee meetings, monthly all-employee meetings, monthly employee newsletter, employee suggestion scheme, and regular employee survey. A copy of the Union’s request, and the Employer’s letter of 2 July 2025, were attached to its 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 said that this was the first application. 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 56.  The Union said that there were 56 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 30 were members of the Union. When 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 petition to demonstrate that the majority of members in the bargaining unit wanted Unite the Union to be recognised for collective bargaining.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because its members on site had reached out to the Union for support as they wanted trade union recognition for their workplace. The Union stated that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. 

9)         When asked whether it was aware of any existing recognition agreement covering any workers in the bargaining unit, the Employer answered “N/A”.

10)       The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union said that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 16 September 2025. 

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 24 June 2025. The Employer responded by letter of 2 July 2025, in which it had acknowledged the request and informed the Union that it already had strong and well-established mechanisms for the employee voice, engagement, and support. This included regular all employee meetings, structured feedback processes, surveys, and dedicated welfare and mental health aiders. The Employer further added that it had emphasised that these arrangements ensured that employees were heard, supported, and involved in shaping their working environment. The Employer therefore felt that it would not be in the best interest of its people to disturb effective systems that were already delivering positive outcomes. A copy of the Union’s request, and the Employer’s letter of 2 July 2025 were attached to its response.

12)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 16 September 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer explained that it focused on the holistic employee experience, ensuring that colleagues felt valued, and part of something special. The Employer provided further examples as to why it considered the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate which would, if necessary, be considered by the Panel at a later stage of the process.

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

14)       The Employer disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application and said that it believed there are inconsistencies between the Union’s estimate and its employment records. The workforce at Derby was integrated with colleagues across other sites through shared projects, training initiatives, and employee engagement activities. As such, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit did not fully reflect the way that it was structured and organised. A limited number of employees were engaged under customer-funded arrangements, whereby their roles were dedicated to providing services at the customer premises. As these positions were indirectly resourced and remunerated by the customer, they would fall outside the scope. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

15)       The Employer disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, stating that it did not have visibility of union membership data and therefore it could not verify the Union’s estimate. The Employer said that it was not however aware of any widespread union activity or requests for recognition from employees. Furthermore, engagement survey results and participation in forums suggested that employees were satisfied with the current arrangements.

16)       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 said that employee engagement was consistently high across its consultation and representation mechanisms. It also held regular employee meetings, ran surveys, published a monthly newsletter, and provided suggestion schemes for colleagues to openly share their views. 

17)       Finally, the Employer was not aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit.

5. The membership and support check

18)       To assist in 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 within the proposed bargaining unit and of the Union’s petition. 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 dates of birth) and a copy of its petition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 1 October 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

19)       The information requested from Union was received by the CAC on 6 October 2025, and from the Employer on 10 October 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

20)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 56 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 28 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 28, a membership level of 50%.

21)       The Union also provided a petition, which comprised of 1 A4 sheet and contained 28 names/signatures. The petition was set out as follows:

“PETITION IN SUPPORT OF UNION RECOGNITION

Trescal

Unite the Union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise Unite for collective bargaining, please sign the petition.

I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on pay hours and holidays.”

Beneath the proposition was a table with 4 columns headed: “PRINT NAME”, “JOB TITLE”, “SIGNATURE”, and “DATE”. The dates on the petition ranged between 27 June 2025 and 1 July 2025.

At the bottom of the page it stated:

“This petition and your personal details will be kept confidential by Unite the Union and will be shared with the Central Arbitration Committee only, who will use these to confidentially verify the level of support for our collective bargaining application. Your employer will not receive your details or a copy of this petition. The petition will be retained by Unite for the duration of the recognition campaign and any associated issues. Unite the Union’s full up-to-date privacy policy can be found at www.unitetheunion.org/privatepolicy”

22)       The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 28 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 50% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 28 signatories, 22 were members of the Union (39.29% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 6 were non-members (10.71% of the proposed bargaining unit). 

23)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 14 October 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by the close of business on 17 October 2025.

6. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

24)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 24 January 2025 the Employer stated that it believed that employees who had joined the Union had since cancelled their union subscriptions. The Employer therefore questioned whether the figures accurately represented the position amongst its current employees. The Employer further submitted that based on its understanding of current employment and membership levels, it did not believe that the Union had satisfied either of the admissibility tests under as set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule.

25)       No comments were received from the Union.

7. Considerations

26)       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 considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

27)       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)

28)       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 proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 - 20 above) showed that 50% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 19 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel notes the Employer’s comments questioning the accuracy of the current level of union membership as it believed that members of the Union had since cancelled their union subscriptions. However, the Panel makes its decisions on the evidence available to it at the time the decision is required. The statute does not allow for future events to be taken into account. The objective of a membership and support check is to give the Panel a snapshot at that moment in time. 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)

29)       Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, 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. For the reasons given in paragraph 28 above the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 50%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case. The Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 50% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (28 out of 56 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraph 20 above). Of those who had signed the petition 22 were Union members (39.29% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 6 were non-members (10.71% of the proposed bargaining unit). On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, that 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. 

8. Decision

30)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 26-29 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray

Mr David Cadger

Mr Brian Hooper

30 October 2025