Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 17 March 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1525(2026)

17 March 2026

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:

USDAW

and

Tetrosyl Limited and Tetrosyl Express Limited

1. Introduction

1)         USDAW (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 5 February 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Tetrosyl Limited and Tetrosyl Express Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Warehouse workers who are employed by both Tetrosyl and Tetrosyl Express at the Rochdale site” based at Unit A, Royle Barn Road, Rochdale, OL11 3DT. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 5 February 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 23 February 2026 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, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Ian Hanson QPM. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

3)         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.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 17 February 2026. 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 26 March 2026.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 17 December 2025. The Union confirmed that the Employer never responded to this request.

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 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 537 and 123 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 70 were Union members. When asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers included in the proposed bargaining unit, the Union did not provide a response.

8)         When called upon 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 it had, “Surveyed workers covered by the collective bargaining agreement and secured 64 signatures in support of collective bargaining recognition. We will continue to gather further signatures from workers. Usdaw would be happy to provide the CAC and ACAS, on a confidential basis, names and relevant information on workers who have signed the survey”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit as “This unit is currently managed as a single entity within the business, works at a single location and is not covered by any existing bargaining arrangements.”. The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union stated that it was not aware that any recognition agreement existed which covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence, and that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 5 February 2026.  

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 17 December 2025 and as, yet no response has been sent.

12)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 5 February 2026. The Employer, when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before it had received a copy of the application form from the Union, stated “No”.

13)       The Employer considered that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate bargaining unit and confirmed its objections to the proposed unit by stating, that “These are separate companies and are, therefore, not an homogenous group of workers. Whilst they carry out similar work and have interchangeable skills, the business model and type of customer served by each business is entirely different and hence different requirements are necessitated within each workforce in terms of flexibility and shift patterns. By way of explanation the core business of Tetrosyl Limited is bulk delivery of car care products (mainly liquids). Hence the work carried out by warehouse staff in this area involves picking, marshalling and loading of full pallets. Tetrosyl Express Limited, by contrast, involves mainly single pick items, including car components as well as car care products, a much more labour-intensive process. Each business is also subject to differing fluctuations in demand, with the Tetrosyl Limited work being much more seasonal in nature (winter is by far the busiest period).  It is not appropriate or workable to treat these workers as one bargaining unit”.

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No”. The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer when asked to state the number of workers in the union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference, stated “149”.

15)       When asked to confirm if there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer confirmed there was no existing recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

16)       The Employer, when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, and to indicate its reasons for disagreeing, with any available evidence, stated, “We have not had sight of any evidence from the union to support their claims of membership numbers and would ask that they kindly supply the same. They can redact names to protect confidentiality if they feel that is necessary.”

17)       The Employer when asked, if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, and to indicate its reasons for taking this view, with any available evidence, stated that “Even on the union’s claimed membership numbers (which remain unverified) they do not have over 50% of the total Bargaining Unit and hence are unlikely to command a majority of support for recognition. The number of workers who the union say have signed to say they support recognition is only 64 (and we have not been furnished with any evidence to support this contention). This constitutes only 43% of the Bargaining Unit.”.

18)       Finally, when asked on whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer stated “N/A”.

5. The check of membership and support

19)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, (1) whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and (2) 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 and support 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, and a copy of the petition in support of recognition mentioned in its application.  It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the names of the employees and members within the bargaining unit and the petition signatories would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 27 February 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

20)       The information from the Employer was received by the CAC on 27 February 2026, and from the Union on 26 February 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

21)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 132 workers. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 68 names.

22)       The Union also provided a petition, which contained 64 names/signatures. The petition was also provided on an Excel document with four headings requesting the following details: Are you in favour of Usdaw being recognised to negotiate terms and conditions for Warehouse Workers in Tetrosyl and Tetrosyl Express? Name, Employer and Email address.

23)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 59, a membership level of 44.70%. The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 64 workers. This represented 43.94% of the proposed bargaining unit. Fifty signatories were members of the Union, which represented 37.88% of the proposed bargaining unit and eight signatories that is 6.06% of the petition signatories, were a non-member.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially.

24)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 27 February 2026 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

25)       In a letter dated 5 March 2026 the Union stated, “As part of the application process for statutory recognition, USDAW are required to show, amongst other things: “A majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union (or unions) as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit”. This requirement is listed under paragraph 36 of Schedule A1 of TULRCA 1992 alongside the requirement that 10% of the workers in the relevant bargaining unit are union members. Importantly therefore the CAC has to answer what is essentially a hypothetical question. Weighing up all the evidence and utilising its industrial experience, the CAC has to exercise its own industrial judgment and determine whether, if the matter were to proceed to a statutory ballot a majority would be likely to favour recognition. It is common ground that the CAC should be satisfied of this if the union can currently show support of approximately 40 per cent of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The sufficiency of a near-majority level of support derives from the well-known fact that there is a ‘bandwagon’ effect in these cases: the recognition, or imminent recognition, of the union will of itself generate additional support for the union. The CAC will be well aware of all the case law making clear it should take into account this bandwagon effect. In this case the union already enjoys a near-majority membership within the relevant bargaining unit 44.7%, and therefore the CAC should infer that a majority of the workers in the unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as their bargaining agent, as the members concerned will favour collective bargaining and it will inevitably be the case that some non-members do so as well (including many who have not yet had the opportunity to sign the petition). This is supported by case law (see especially CATU and Industrial Agricultural Engineers (TUR1/358/04, 10 June 2004), CAC, at para 19, and Amicus and Paddock Fabrications Ltd (TUR1/378/04, 13 July 2004), CAC, at para 15. Furthermore, and without having proper access to the workers, Usdaw has achieved 43.94% of employees in the bargaining unit signing a statement in support of Usdaw being recognised for collective bargaining. There are 8 individuals who have signed this statement who have not yet joined the union. When these 8 are added to the number of individuals who are members of Usdaw, this is equal to 67 individuals showing support for collective bargaining, either through being members or signing the statement. This number exceeds 50% of the bargaining unit. We therefore urge the CAC to accept USDAW’s application given current membership density and taking into account the “bandwagon effect”.

26)       In an email dated 5 March 2026 the Employer stated, “Having considered your report in some detail our comments would be as follows: Specifically with regards to the requirement set out under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, on the basis of the figures as presented in your report, the total proportion of workers who have signed the petition in favour of recognition is only 44% even when including non-union members. This is in spite of extensive lobbying of our workforce on the part of USDAW over a period of many months. The number of non-union members who have signed the petition is extremely low – only 6% of the proposed bargaining unit so, in our submission, we can safely extrapolate from this information that, outside of their membership, the level of support for union recognition is, in fact, vanishingly small. In view of the above it is our submission that, on the basis of the figures set out in your report, there is simply no factual basis upon which the CAC can reasonably conclude that it is likely that a majority of the workers within the bargaining unit favour union recognition and, on that basis, we would respectfully invite you to dismiss this application as it self-evidently fails to satisfy the test set out in paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule”.

7. Considerations

27)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 above are satisfied. The Panel has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

28)       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)

29)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 23 above showed that 44.70% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed 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)

30)       The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether 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. The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of 132 workers provided by the Employer indicated that 50 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 37.88%. The petition was signed by 8 non-members amounting to 6.06% of the total. The wording on the petition is set out in paragraph 22 above. The Panel believes the proposition in the petition is clear and unambiguous, referring to the specified Union being formally recognised for collective bargaining purposes, and would leave the signatory in no doubt what they were being asked to support.

31)       On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

32)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Ian Hanson QPM

17 March 2026