Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 22 December 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1503(2025)

22 December 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

Wincanton Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 November 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Wincanton Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Transport Clerical (AT4’s), M grade managers (M1 Grade Managers).” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Sainsbury’s Basingstoke, Houndmills Rd, Basingstoke, RG21 6XW.” The application was received by the CAC on 3 November 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 10 November 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 Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs Deborah England and Mr Nigel Cotgrove. 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 17 November 2025. The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions in order to allow time for a membership check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 22 December 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 stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 28 April 2025. The Union stated that the Employer’s final response to its request was conveyed in an e-mail from the Acas Collective Conciliator, on dated 23 October 2025. In this e-mail the Employer said, “With this said, and a formal response given to the request, my suggestion would be that we no longer require the meeting on Friday with the Unions as further negotiations will now have stopped at this stage. We are happy for you to share the confirmation of the request being declined and reasoning as stated above with the Union.” A copy of the Union’s request, and the e-mail from the Acas Collective Conciliator, dated 23 October 2025, were attached to the Union’s 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”. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties, and that it had agreed.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 2500. The Union stated that there were 34 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 23 were members of the Union. When asked 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 that a protected membership list could be supplied upon request.       

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because, “Members requesting recognition to allow collective bargaining to achieve better pay increases.” The Union further adding that the Drivers already had recognition. The Union said that the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, and that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware that covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 3 November 2025.  

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 28 April 2025. When asked for its response to the request, the Employer said that the proposed bargaining unit contained two different categories of employees that were not aligned on many aspects. They were graded at two different levels, and as one grade had management responsibility over the other there was a significant conflict of interest in becoming one bargaining unit. In addition to this, colleagues graded at a M1 level had different levels of roles and responsibilities within this grading to a AT4 colleague, as well as different pay and benefits.

11)       When asked for the date on which it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union, the Employer answered “N/A”. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, nor did it agree with the proposed bargaining unit and referred to its comments as set out in paragraph 10 above.  

12)       The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Union had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.   

13)       The Employer stated that it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application and said that there were “36 colleagues in total - Split as 20 AT4 graded and 16 M1 graded colleagues.” The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14)       In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered “N/A”.    

15)       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 it was “Unable to comment at this time.”

16)       Finally, the Employer stated that it was not aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, nor had it received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. Additional comments from the parties

17)       In an e-mail dated 10 November 2025 the Employer clarified for the Case Manager that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union by e-mail of 3 November 2025. The explained that it had misinterpreted the original question in the Employer Response form.   

6. The membership and support check

18)       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 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). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 19 November 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

19)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 24 November 2025 and from the Union on 26 November 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 38 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The following job titles were listed:

• Health & Safety Officer

• HR Assistant

• Transport Planner

• Transport Planner Assistant

• Transport Support Assistant

• Transport Team Manager

• Transport Yard Assistant

21)       The list of members supplied by the Union contained 22 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 21 a membership level of 55.26%.  The Panel is satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

22)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 27 November 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by the close of business on 2 December 2025.

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

23)       In an e-mail to the CAC, dated 2 December 2025, the Employer stated that the only point that it wished to raise was the discrepancy of 1 employee / member missing from the list provided by the Employer against the Union’s list. The Employer asked whether this name and job role could be provided so that it could be checked as to why they were not on the list and to identify any possible system issue when the report was pulled off. The Employer confirmed that it did not wish to make any further comments at this stage.

24)       No comments were received from the Union.

8. Considerations

25)       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.

26)       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)

27)       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. 

28)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 - 21 above) showed that 55.26% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 21 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 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 55.26%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. The Panel has received no such evidence to the contrary in this case. 

30.       On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, 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.

9. Decision

31.       For the reasons given in paragraphs 26 - 28 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair

Mrs Deborah England

Mr Nigel Cotgrove

22 December 2025