Acceptance Decision
Updated 30 December 2025
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-urtu-menzies-distribution-solutions/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1507(2025)
30 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:
URTU
and
Menzies Distribution Solutions
1. Introduction
1) URTU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 12 November 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Menzies Distribution Solutions (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All HGV drivers (class 1 and class 2) and van drivers.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Menzies Distribution Care of Ultraframe, Lincoln Way 2, Clitheroe, BB7 1QD.” The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 24 November 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, Mr John Rawling and Mr Christopher Burrows. 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 26 November 2025. The acceptance period was extended 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 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) The Union sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 15 October 2025. The Union explained that a company representative had replied to its letter on 16 October 2025, and requested proof of the Union’s assertions that over 70% of the drivers were members of the Union, before it would consider discussions.
6) The Union said that it had replied to the Employer on 16 October 2025 and explained that it was willing to involve ACAS to assist with a Union member density check, as it was not willing to provide the names of its current union members. The Union said that the Employer had failed to reply, and that it had since ignored all correspondence. A copy of the Union’s request, the Employer’s e-mail of 15 October 2025 and the Union’s e-mail of 16 October 2025 were attached to the Union’s application.
7) 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 “N/A”. 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.
8) The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was “unknown”. The Union stated that there were 17 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 11 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 answered “N/A”.
9) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because URTU was a specialised Road Haulage Union that represented members whose main vocation was road transport. It also represented members who worked in warehousing, but on this occasion it was only seeking to represent the drivers at the Clitheroe site.
10) The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. When asked whether it was aware of an existing recognition agreement that covered any workers in the bargaining unit, it answered, “not known”.
11) 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 12 November 2025.
4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application
12) In its covering e-mail the Employer said that it was formally requesting an extension until 24 November 2025 for the submission of its response document. It further explained that this delay was necessary as it had now engaged with the Union representative and scheduled a meeting on 4 December 2025. The Employer said that during this meeting, it would discuss how to proceed voluntarily. The Employer believed that the Union had accepted the invitation to attend.
13) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 10 October 2025. When asked how it had responded to the Union’s request the Employer simply stated, “Request particulars about membership.”
14) The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 12 November 2025. When asked whether it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before it had received a copy of the application form from the Union, the Employer said that it was still in talks and that it was arranging a meeting with the URTU Official. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that ACAS should be requested to assist.
15) The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application, and that the figure was approximately 24. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
16) The Employer did not comment on the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, nor did it respond 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.
17) The Employer 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
18) On 26 November 2025 the Employer’s response was copied to the Union and its comments invited. In an e-mail dated 1 December 2025 the Union said that it did not object to delaying the application to 10 December 2025. The Union said that the proposed delay from the Employer on 21 November for a stay until 24 November was a moot point, as it had not received any communication from the CAC about this proposal until 26 November 2025.
19) The Union explained that it had agreed to meet with the Employer on 2 December 2025 and that its understanding was that the agenda would not be on recognition but only the reasons for a CAC application. The Union considered this to be a strange request but in the spirit of good industrial relations it had agreed “to hear them out.”
20) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 5 December 2025, the Union confirmed that it wished to continue with the application process and said that it had “no need or desire for a stay on the process.” It therefore asked for the process to continue as usual. The Union said that it was however still open to have discussions with the Employer on voluntary recognition and that it would be willing to delay the process at a later date if genuine and constructive talks were to take place.
6. The membership and support check
21) 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 and of a petition compiled 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 full names and dates of birth) and a copy of its petition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 11 December 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.
22) The information requested from Union was received by the CAC on 12 December 2025, and that from the Employer on 16 December 2025.
23) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 21 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 11 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 11, a membership level of 52.38%%.
24) The petition supplied by the Union comprised of 1 A4 sheet and contained 17 names/signatures. The petition was headed with the URTU’s logo and was set out as follows:
“PETITION TO HAVE UNITED ROAD TRANSPORT UNION AS A RECOGNISED UNION ON SITE AT MENZIES – CLITHEROE
Any member and Non-member of our Union can sign this Petition.”
Beneath that proposition was a table with 4 columns headed: “Name”, “Signature”, “Job Title”, and “Date”. The dates on the petition ranged between 8 and 10 December 2025.
25) The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 17 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 66.67% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of the 17 signatories, 10 were members of the Union (47.62% of the bargaining unit) and 4 were non-members (19.05% of the bargaining unit).
26) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 17 December 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by the close of business on 22 December 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check
27) In an e-mail dated 19 December 2025 the Union said it had no comments to make “as all seems correct.” It did however wish to add that one Union member had not signed the petition as they were away on annual leave until February. The Union also said it was still open to discuss with the Employer the possibility of entering into a voluntary recognition agreement if they wish to do so.
28) No comments were received from the Employer by the deadline.
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 considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.
30) 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) 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 21 - 23 above) showed that 52.38% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. 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) 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 31 above the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 52.38%. 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.
33) The Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 66.67% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (14 out of 21 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraphs 24-25 above). Of those who had signed the petition 10 were Union members (47.62% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 4 were non-members (19.05% of the proposed bargaining unit).
34) 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.
9. Decision
35) For the reasons given in paragraphs 30 - 35 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair
Mr John Rawling
Mr Christopher Burrows
30 December 2025