Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 23 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1488(2025)

23 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:

United Road Transport Union (URTU)

and

Facilities by ADF PLC

1. Introduction

1)         United Road Transport Union (URTU) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 18 August 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Facilities by ADF PLC (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All HGV Drivers employed as swing drivers, gully swing drivers, senior lead drivers and lead drivers.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Bridgend, Kitsmead, Manchester and Glasgow.” The application was received by the CAC on 18 August 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 18 August 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 21 August 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 Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs Deborah England and Mr Nicholas Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 2 September 2025. The acceptance period was extended to 16 September 2025 and thereafter to 30 September 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said comments before arriving at a decision.  

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 made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 31 July 2025. The Union said that the Employer declined the recognition request. The Union attached a copy of its request dated 31 July 2025 and the Employer’s response dated 13 August 2025.

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 it had made an application on 30 October 2024. The Union went on to say, “on 21 November 2024, the CAC Panel confirmed that the application was not accepted, due to its belief at that time, that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would not be likely to favour recognition of the Union.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did not propose that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was “Circa 275”. The Union stated that there were “Circa 50” workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer disagreed with this figure. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the union answered, “23 members” and that this came from the Union’s head office membership data base. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said, that during June and July 2025 it had conducted a workplace survey of workers employed in the proposed bargaining unit which confirmed “support by 37 employees for the United Road Transport to be recognised by the company to negotiate terms and conditions of employment by means of a collective agreement.”

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because the vast majority of its members were employed as HGV drivers and the Union believed it was best placed to serve the interests of its members employed within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Union answered “N/A.”

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 18 August 2025.

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

10)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 31 July 2025. The Employer said that it had responded to the request on 13 August 2025 stating that it did not want to enter into a collective agreement.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 18 August 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit but that it did now agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said it had 224 employees and that it did not agree with the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that there were 48 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

12)       When asked 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 answered, “we do not believe that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition. This is from anecdotal discussions with the workforce. A number of individuals have told us that they originally joined the union but have subsequently cancelled their membership. The company will be conducting a pay review in October 2025. We also communicate directly with these employees via Employee Forums and ‘all hands’ company updates. During our initial meeting, union representatives stated that no concerns or issues had been raised from our employees and so we do not consider that our employees would find any benefit from a recognition agreement.”

13)       The Employer answered “N/A” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. The membership and support check

14)       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 a petition supplied by the Union. 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 also 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. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 1 September 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

15)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 2 September 2025 and from the Union on 1 September 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

16)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 46 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer listed the following roles:

• Swing Driver

• Senior Lead Driver

• Waste Tanker Driver

• Driver Assessor

• Lead Driver

17)       The list of members supplied by the Union contained 24 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 22 a membership level of 47.83%.

18)       The Union also provided a paper petition on 5 A4 sheets of paper with 37 entries. At the top of each page the Union’s logo was displayed with the following caption below it:

“I confirm my support for the United Road Transport Union (URTU) to be recognised by my employer facilities by ADF PLC, to negotiate my terms and conditions of employment by means of a collective agreement.”

Below this were 5 columns with the following headings: “Name”, “Signature”, “Date”, “Location” and “Job Title.” The dates of the entries ranged from 23 June 2025 up to and including 20 July 2025.

19)       The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 32 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 69.57% of the proposed bargaining unit. 17 of the petition signatories were members of the Union (36.96%) and 15 (32.61%), of the petition signatories, were non-members. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 3 September 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 8 September 2025.

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

20)       In an email dated 8 September 2025 the Union said that it had noted that two union members did not appear on the Employer’s list. The Union went on to say “at the time of writing, the list of names sent to the CAC were contained on the list of members held on record at our Unions head Office. I can only assume those two individuals are no longer employed by Facilities by ADF and have failed to inform our head office of their change of employer. On the substantial points addressed in Section 36. – (a) I believe the trade union has demonstrated it has well in excess of 10 per cent of workers in the relevant bargaining unit and as confirmed in the report, the current true figure is 47.83%. In response to (b) as confirmed in the report, the proportion of workers in the proposed barraging unit who have signed the workplace petition confirming support for the Union to be recognised for collective bargaining is 69.57%. Due to the above, I understand both thresholds have been met/exceeded and believe the application should be accepted.”

21)       In an email dated 5 September 2025 the Employer said that the list it had provided for the purposes of the check was up to date as of 2 September 2025 and it was therefore possible that some of the members on the Union’s list could have left the Company recently. The Employer continued by saying “there also appears to be some names that have signed the petition that are not on our list, they may be members of a different team in the company that is not in the bargaining unit.” The Employer continued “I note that the petition asked for support for the United Road Transport Union (URTU) to be recognised by my employer facilities by AD PLC, to negotiate my terms and conditions of employment by means of a collective agreement. However, there doesn’t seem to be an indication that the employees would be prepared to pay for union membership. We have been given anecdotal information that suggests they would not. Some employees have stated that they have stopped their membership as they felt they were not getting value for money. From our knowledge and the evidence presented, there appears to be less support than when the previous application was made and discontinued. The company view remains that that we do not feel there is a requirement for a recognition agreement. We hold regular forums with the drivers where we discuss any concerns that they would like to raise and have also conducted a number of pay reviews with another scheduled for October. Furthermore, when we met with the Union, they acknowledged that the drivers had not raised any issues with them. We therefore consider that the majority of workers within the relevant bargaining unit would not be likely to favour union recognition.”

7. Considerations

22)       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. 

23)       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 paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

24)       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. 

25)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 14 to 19 above) showed that 47.83% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 15 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

26)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 25 above the Panel has 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)

27)       Under paragraph 36(1) 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. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 47.83% when taken with the 32.61% of non-union members signing the petition shows 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.

28)       The Panel has also considered the Employer’s submissions as outlined in paragraph 21 above. Petitions are circulated widely amongst workers in a proposed bargaining unit and are not restricted to members alone. Non-members can sign a petition to support a Union being recognised without committing thereafter to becoming a member of that union for their signature to count. The CAC has not received contact from any workers in the proposed bargaining unit to say that they are no longer supportive of recognition and wished to withdraw their signature.

8. Decision

29)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 22-28 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mrs Deborah England

Mr Nicholas Childs

23 September 2025