Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 24 September 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1534(2026)

22 September 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

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. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         By a decision dated 10 June 2026 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. As no agreement was reached, the Panel held a virtual hearing to decide that issue on 18 August 2026. In a decision dated 1 September 2026 the Panel determined that the appropriate bargaining unit was “all operational employees at the Employer’s Aberdeen site, which, for the avoidance of doubt, excludes the Assistant Operations Manager and Operations Manager.”

2. Issues

4)         As the determined bargaining unit differs from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

3. Membership and support check

5)         To assist the determination of two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely whether 10% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the determined bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 45(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the agreed 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 determined 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). It was explicitly agreed with both the parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 8 September 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.

6)         The information from the Employer was received by the CAC on 8 September 2026 and from the Union on 10 September 2026.

7)         The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 69 workers in the determined bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 26 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the determined bargaining unit was 25, a membership level of 36.23%.

8)         The Union also re-submitted the results of a survey it had relied upon in support of its original application. This was 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?”

9)         The check of the survey showed that 23 workers were in the determined bargaining unit, a figure which represents 33.33% of the determined bargaining unit. 21 were members of the Union (30.43%) and 2 (2.90%) were non-members. A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 10 September 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 16 September 2026. In a previous letter dated 1 September 2026 the parties had also been invited to make their submissions on the validity tests for consideration by the Panel.

4. Employer’s comments on the validity tests

10)       In an email to the Case Manager dated 3 September 2026 the Employer made the following comments on the validity tests:

• Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “No union recognition agreement in place in new bargaining unit.”

• Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? “Yes, we believe so. Following the membership and support check in May 2027, there were 22 confirmed members from the proposed new bargaining unit of 69. As we discussed at the hearing the composition of the original proposed bargaining unit has changed, so we cannot accurately confirm.”

• Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition? “This is unknown, where a ballot would have to be undertaken to confirm.”

• Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? “No other applications.”

• Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? “No previous applications.”

11)       The Employer in an email dated 14 September 2026 made the following comments regarding the membership and support check:

We accept the CAC’s verification results based on the information currently available and have no comments on the methodology or outcome of the checks undertaken.

The Employer recognises that the Union has support amongst a proportion of employees within the bargaining unit. The report identifies 25 union members within the bargaining unit, representing 36.23% of employees, and records 23 valid survey responses, representing 33.33% of the bargaining unit. Of those employees who completed the survey, 21 were existing union members.

Whilst these figures demonstrate a level of support for the Union, they do not demonstrate majority support for recognition. More importantly, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Union is likely to command majority support across the bargaining unit as a whole.

The survey results indicate that support is concentrated primarily amongst existing union members rather than the wider workforce. The fact that 21 of the 23 recognised respondents were already union members provides limited evidence of support beyond the Union’s current membership base.

In addition, during the Employee Voice Forum held on 23 July 2026, employee representatives were asked for their views regarding union representation within the wider operational workforce. The feedback received was that employee opinion was mixed and that support for union recognition appeared to be largely confined to employees who were already members of the Union. Employee representatives did not express a view that there was widespread or majority support for recognition across the bargaining unit.

The Employer considers this feedback to be consistent with the membership and survey data contained within the report. Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that the Union enjoys support amongst a section of the workforce, but it does not demonstrate either majority support or likely majority support for statutory recognition within the bargaining unit.

On that basis, the Employer submits that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that recognition is likely to command majority support within the bargaining unit.

5. Union’s comments on the validity tests

12)       In an email to the Case Manager dated 7 September 2026 the Union made the following comments on the validity tests:

• Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “GMB do not believe there is an existing recognition agreement that covers any of the workers outlined in the new bargaining unit.”

• Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? “10% membership of the bargaining unit would be 7 workers. We have already identified through the previous membership check that GMB has 24 members within the previous bargaining unit which will be encompassed by this one.”

• Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition? “GMB firmly believes that the majority of workers in the new bargaining unit favour recognition. At the last membership check we provided 30 members at Dales Marine in Aberdeen which would comprise 42% of the new bargaining unit. Everyone who had the capacity to answer the survey answered the survey saying that they would like GMB recognition. Therefore, we are clear that there will be a simple majority of workers within the bargaining unit that favour recognition and we would insist on avoiding any further delay to granting them it.”

• Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? “As far as we are aware there is no other competing application.”

• Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? “We are not aware of any previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit. We hope that if this new bargaining unit is agreed that we can move to granting recognition at the earliest opportunity.”

13)       The Union in an email dated 14 September 2026 made the following comments regarding the membership and support check:

GMB members make up a significant proportion of the bargaining unit. We were only able to survey the GMB members at the point the survey was open, as we have no access to the workplace or to the wider workforce to communicate with them.

We believe we would successfully get a simple majority for recognition as we can clearly demonstrate that a third of the workforce want recognition at this stage before any conversations are had with the extended bargaining unit.

Moving to a ballot would further prolong what has already been a protracted process.

Dales Marine has successfully lobbied for the larger bargaining unit, and we believe there is sufficient level of support to grant recognition on the employer’s preferred bargaining unit. Granting recognition would successfully conclude this process for everyone at this stage.

6. Considerations

14)       The Panel is required to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and all the other evidence before it.

15)       The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45 of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(a)

16)       Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers in the determined bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (see paragraphs 5 to 9 above) showed that 36.23% of the workers in the determined 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. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(b)

17)       Paragraph 45(b) provides that the application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the determined bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

18)       The Panel notes that the membership check conducted by the Case Manager (see paragraphs 5 to 9 above) showed that 36.23% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit were Union members. The Panel considers that, in the light of the Union’s survey results and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, all of these workers are likely to be in favour of being covered by collective bargaining. In addition, a further two workers who are not Union members, being 2.9% of the determined bargaining unit, indicated in the survey that they support recognition of the Union. On that basis, the Panel is satisfied that at least 39.13% of the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition.

19)       In order to conclude that there is likely to be a majority in support, the Panel needs to be satisfied that around a further 11% of the determined bargaining unit, or 8 workers, would be in favour of recognition. The Panel notes the Employer’s submission that, when it asked employee representatives at its Employee Voice Forum held in July (after the Union’s application for recognition had been submitted) whether there was support for union recognition, the employee representatives did not say there was widespread or majority support for recognition. The Panel does not, however, consider that this amounts to credible evidence that there is no such support, particularly when the Employer also describes the representatives’ feedback as “mixed”. The Panel also notes that the Union has so far not had the opportunity to speak to or survey the workers who are now within the bargaining unit about the benefits of union recognition. There are 26 more workers in the determined bargaining unit than there were in the unit the Union originally proposed. Many of these workers are involved in skilled manual work, a group that has traditionally had a higher union density than other sections of the national workforce. The Panel considers it more likely than not that at least 8 of these workers would be likely to favour union recognition.

20)       The Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the determined 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 45(b) of the Schedule. In reaching that conclusion, the Panel also takes into account its general duty under paragraph 171 of the Schedule to have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying the other provisions of the Schedule. The Panel considers that it would assist both parties, the Union’s members and the Employer’s management team alike, to have the issue of union recognition definitively resolved by a ballot of all the workers in the determined bargaining unit.

7. Decision 

21)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 14 - 20 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid, and that the CAC is proceeding with the application.

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Ian Hanson

22 September 2026