Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 10 June 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1534(2026)

10 June 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:

GMB

and

Dales Marine Services

1. Introduction

1)       GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 18 March 2026 (received by the CAC on 23 March 2026) that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Dales Marine Services (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all grades of Welders, Platers, steelworkers, supervisors, labourers and apprentices in those trades working in the fabrication department at Dales Marine Service’s Aberdeen site.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Dales Marine Services, York Street, Aberdeen, AB11 5DP.” The Employer submitted a response dated 30 April 2026.

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 Mark Pennifold and Mr Ian Hanson QPM. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         The CAC Panel extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 8 April 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 23 June 2026 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership and support check and for the Panel to consider those 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 6 March 2026. The Union said that the Employer responded by email on 10 March 2026 saying: “thank you for reaching out and for your offer to support our employees with your services. At this moment, we do not believe this is required, and we would prefer to engage with our workforce directly.” The Union attached a copy of its request letter dated 6 March 2026 and the Employer’s response email 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 answered, “no.” 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 143. The Union stated that there were 36 workers in the proposed bargaining unit but that the Employer did not agree 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 said it had 22 members in the proposed bargaining unit and “a membership list for the proposed bargaining unit can be provided to the CAC on request, but as per the note on confidential information provided on page 8 below, we cannot enclose this with the application.” 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: “a spreadsheet output of an electronic survey with members names, department, job titles and wish for GMB Union to be recognised, and a spreadsheet evidencing recent join date during our recognition campaign can be provided to the CAC on request, but as per the note on confidential information provided on page 8 below, we cannot enclose these pieces of evidence with the application.”

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “all workers in the proposed bargaining unit are employed in similar tasks. GMB union is experienced in representing the trades in the proposed bargaining unit. All employees in the proposed bargaining unit have similar working patterns and working conditions. Most members who joined since our recognition campaign began are in this department, demonstrating they want union recognition for GMB Union.” 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, “No.”

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 March 2026 and that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to ACAS.

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 6 March 2026. The Employer said that it had responded on 10 March 2026 stating: “thank you for reaching out and for your offer to support our employees with your services. At this moment, we do not believe this is required, and we would prefer to engage with our workforce directly.”

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 24 March 2026. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it did not believe the proposed bargaining unit was sensible or workable. The Employer said that in reality in addition to the roles the Union had listed there were a further 10 roles within operations at the Aberdeen site which were also employed on similar working patterns and working conditions and worked closely with and were operationally interdependent on the roles in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was therefore artificially narrow and would create “a small and fragmented unit within a highly integrated operational structure.” The Employer said “in addition all employees at the site, including those both within and outside the proposed bargaining unit, ultimately report into the same Operations Manager/Assistant Operations Manager. The introduction of a bargaining unit covering only part of that reporting line would result in a single manager being required to manage employees on different collective arrangements despite their shared supervision, overlapping duties and common operational objectives. This would create inconsistency in the application of terms and conditions, consultation processes and day-to-day management, and would be difficult to operate in practice.”

12)       The Employer went on to say that the issue was further compounded by the existence of site-wide policies and a workforce agreement which applied consistently to all colleagues across the Aberdeen site. The Employer said introducing collective bargaining for only a “subset” of employees would cut across these established arrangements “creating potential conflict, duplication and uncertainty in their application.” The Employer said it would also give rise to practical difficulties in workforce planning and operational delivery “particularly where employees across different roles must be deployed flexibly and work interchangeably to meet business needs.” The Employer concluded this point by saying that such fragmentation would be incompatible with effective management and would risk undermining efficient workforce planning, operational delivery and the consistent treatment of employees performing closely related or interdependent roles. “For these reasons the proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate and would be prejudicial to the efficient operation of the business.”

13)       The Employer stated that it had 197 workers. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and said the current figure was 63. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. There was however a workforce agreement covering the entire Aberdeen site a copy of which could be provided upon request. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered, “we do not hold records of trade union membership within the proposed bargaining unit and are not therefore in a position to verify or comment on the Union’s estimate. The Union has not provided any supporting evidence or methodology to substantiate its stated figures.” The Employer said that there had been a number of recent resignations from within the relevant workforce including at least two individuals who had previously chosen to be accompanied by trade union representatives at formal meetings. The Employer said that this raised questions as to whether the Union’s estimate reflected current membership within the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that in the absence of transparent and verifiable evidence the Union’s figure should be treated with caution and that membership was likely to be lower than that asserted. The Employer requested that the Union be asked to provide a suitably redacted list or other appropriate evidence to substantiate its claimed level of membership to enable proper scrutiny by the CAC.

14)       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 said that it did not believe that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition due to the Employer’s direct experience of engaging with employees across the workforce. The Employer said that from the beginning of November 2025 it had engaged employees on matters arising from or in connection with working arrangements and the working time regulations. The Employer said that on 18 November 2025 employees were invited to nominate and vote for workplace representatives for the purpose of consulting on and agreeing a workforce agreement. The Employer said that following the election of the workplace representatives there was a period of consultation culminating on 6 February 2026 in the signing of a workforce agreement on behalf of employees. The Employer said that the agreement covered key matters including working arrangements, shift patterns, hours of work, pay (including overtime) and health and safety risk assessments as well as certain employee benefits.

15)       The Employer went on to say that in addition over the last three months it had undertaken further direct engagement with employees across the entire workforce, including Aberdeen and those within the proposed bargaining unit, on a broader range of workplace matters. The Employer said that employees were actively and repeatedly encouraged in a variety of different ways to nominate representatives and participate in an “employee voice forum”. Despite these invitations and opportunities, engagement was limited and only a small number of nominations was received. The Employer said it had attempted this again, but employees had shown little or no interest. The Employer went on to say that it has an established practice of employees raising questions, concerns and workplace matters directly with management. The Employer said that employees routinely engaged with line management and HR on both individual and collective issues and the Employer had processes in place to respond to and address such matters promptly. The Employer said that the pattern of direct engagement further suggested that employees were utilising existing channels to have their views heard rather than seeking to do so through formal representative structures. The Employer said that the low level of interest and participation in an employee voice forum and the high level of direct engagement between employees and managers indicated that there was no clear or sustained expression from employees of a desire for additional or alternative forms of collective representation beyond the existing arrangements. The Employer said, “in particular there has been no identifiable demand from employees to replace or supplement the current workforce agreement and direct lines of communication with management and HR with union recognition.”

16)       The Employer said that caution should be exercised before drawing conclusions about the level of informed support for recognition. The Employer said it was important to ensure that employees fully understood the nature and implications of union recognition including how collective bargaining would operate in practice. The Employer said there was no information to show how the Union had communicated this information to the employees. The Employer said that the Union had made reference to an electronic survey demonstrating majority support but that the Employer had not been provided with a copy of that survey, its methodology or results. The Employer said that any survey should be properly scrutinized by the CAC.

17)       The Employer said it was not aware of any previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, and it had not received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to ACAS.

5. Summary of the Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the application

18)       In a letter dated 12 May 2026 the Union said “we understand from Dales Marine response that they are concerned the bargaining unit would cause fragmentation. We do not share or accept this concern. However, we would be open to further discussion regarding the bargaining unit to ensure it does work in practice. As you will understand from the documentation when we initially approached, we were rebuffed so there has been no dialogue at this stage. When Dales Marine outlines the size of the bargaining unit we would like to understand, is this the bargaining unit we have outlined or the one they have detailed in their response that they would prefer? We would appreciate a copy of the site wide agreement. Once we have concluded discussions regarding the bargaining unit with the employer, we would be more than happy to submit to an independent membership verification either through CAC or ACAS.”

19)       The letter further went on to say “we would question the employer’s view on why the majority of the workforce would not want collective bargaining. We would suggest that the workforce may consider the employers’ direct engagement ineffectual and that is why they are not engaging with it but are choosing to join GMB. Our members have been clear with us that they wish to have collective bargaining. We are happy to provide redacted survey results, which were 100% of all those who completed the survey wished to have collective bargaining. We would be keen to explore this further through ACAS.”

6. Employer’s further comments

20)       In an email dated 18 May 2026 the Employer said that the list of employees it had provided only consisted of those with the exact job titles requested by the Union. The Employer went on to say “as stated previously, we have other trades working on site which, in our view, should be included when making the assessment. I note that the unions have requested a copy of our workforce agreement. At this stage, I am happy to share it with the Case Manager; however, I am apprehensive about sharing it with a third party. It contains details of our overtime payments and other benefits, which I do not think is appropriate for the union to have visibility of, at least at this stage of the process.”

7. The membership and support check

21)       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 survey 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 survey. 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 13 May 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.

22)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 15 May 2026 and from the Employer on 18 May 2026.   

23)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 43 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 30 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 24, a membership level of 55.81%.

24)       The Union also provided the results of a survey in the form of a spreadsheet which consisted of 4 columns headed, “Do you work in the Fabrication Department at Dales Marine, Aberdeen?”, “What is your name?”, “What is your job title” and “Do you want GMB to become the recognised trade union in the fabrication department?” There were 25 typed entries on the spreadsheet, all of which had “Yes” beneath the heading “Do you want GMB to become the recognised trade union in the fabrication department?”

25)       The check of the survey showed that 23 workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 53.49% of the proposed bargaining unit. 22 were members of the Union (51.16%) and 1 (2.33%) was a non-member. A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 27 May 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 3 June 2026.

8. Summary of the Employer’s comments following the membership and support check

26)       In an email dated 2 June 2026 the Employer said: “20 of the 43 employees in the bargaining unit did not participate therefore while the survey demonstrates support from those who responded, it provides no evidence of the views of almost half of the bargaining unit. The margin in, in fact, very narrow: The evidence of support is 51.16%. That is only 1 worker above the 50% threshold. Therefore, even a small number of errors, outdated membership, or workers whose views have changed could affect the conclusion e.g. if 1 worker’s views have changed the supports falls to 48.84%. Dales have evidence that during the last Employee Voice Forum conducted in Aberdeen on 5 May 2026, trade union recognition subject was discussed and Shaun Gray (Welder) explicitly said that he and the team was supportive of it last year but with recent management changes, they don’t think trade union recognition is welcome anymore.  24 union members are identified within the bargaining unit but only 22 of those appear in the survey. The conclusion must be that two confirmed members chose not to participate in a survey concerning recognition, which indicates that membership does not automatically translate [into] support for recognition. Those surveyed were asked “Do you want GMB to become recognised trade union in the fabrication department”. There is no evidence that it was explained to, or it was understood by the 22 participating in the survey this means “recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit”. The union membership list contains 30 names whereas only 24 appear on the employer’s bargaining-unit list. In other words, 6 names do not appear and therefore the union’s evidence is less reliable than it appears because some claimed members are not part of the proposed bargaining unit. It is accepted that these 6 names have been discounted, it casts doubt on the methodology of the union. In short, raw numbers do not give a clear answer to whether 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.” The Employer concluded their comments by stating “we understand that the relevant date for assessing union support is the date of the application. The date of the application is 6 March 2026. We have not been provided with the date the survey was conducted; however, we have confirmation directly from the workforce that they no longer wish to support the union’s application for recognition. Therefore, we reserve our right to contend that the survey results do not demonstrate a majority of the workers as of 6 March 2026.”

9. Summary of the Union’s comments following the membership and support check

27)       The Union in an email dated 27 May 2026 said, “the only comment from the GMB is that we would like to outline that we believe the membership check and survey clearly demonstrate that a majority of workers in the bargaining unit are committed to favouring recognition of GMB.”

10. Considerations

28)       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.

29)       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)

30)       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. References to the bargaining unit are to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union. This is the unit against which the admissibility and validity tests are applied. In their respective responses detailed above the parties have provided arguments on the proposed bargaining unit. Whether or not the bargaining unit is appropriate will be decided if the application is accepted by the CAC.

31)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 21 to 25 above) showed that 55.81% 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 agreement reached with the parties.

32)       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)

33)       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. The Employer has made various criticisms of the Union’s survey, which are set out above. The Panel is satisfied however that, irrespective of the results of that survey, Union membership of 55.81% establishes 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.

11. Decision

34)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 28-33 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Ian Hanson QPM

10 June 2026