Recognition Decision
Updated 10 June 2026
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2026
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-outcomes-gmb-luxfer-mel-technologies/recognition-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1533(2026)
10 June 2026
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
The Parties:
GMB
and
Luxfer MEL Technologies
1. Introduction
1) GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 16 March 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Luxfer MEL Technologies (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “those working on B2 contracts (B2 contract roles).”
2) The location of the bargaining unit was given as Luxfer MEL Technologies, Elektron Technology Centre, Lumns Lane, Manchester, M27 8LN. The application was received by the CAC on 16 March 2026, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 16 March 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 23 March 2026 which was copied to the Union.
3) 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, Ms Amanda Ashworth and Mr Sean Starbuck. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.
4) By a decision dated 6 May 2026 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. As the parties had agreed the bargaining unit prior to the application being submitted, Schedule A1 of the Act provides that where the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2), unless any of three qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found there is a majority of union members in the bargaining unit if any of these conditions is fulfilled. The qualifying conditions are set out in paragraph 22(4). They are:
(a) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;
(b) a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit inform the CAC that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;
(c) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.
2. Unions’ submissions on the issue of majority membership
5) On 6 May 2026 the Union was asked whether it claimed that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and therefore submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an email dated 8 May 2026, said “In accordance with Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, GMB confirms that it claims majority membership within the agreed bargaining unit at Luxfer MEL Technologies. On that basis, the Union submits that it should be granted statutory recognition without the holding of a ballot, as the conditions set out in paragraph 22 of the Schedule are satisfied.”
3. Employer’s submissions on the issue of majority membership
6) On 8 May 2026 the Union’s email was copied to the Employer, and its submissions were invited on the Union’s claim to majority membership and on the paragraph 22 qualifying conditions as set out above. The Employer responded on 17 May 2026 and submitted “We continue to work with GMB on a new voluntary agreement based on the requirements coming directly from representatives across the ~100 employees, and it is still our belief from discussions with GMB that this is the preferred approach by all parties. A new voluntary recognition agreement has been prepared and reviewed across the LMT team and will be with GMB early next week for review. Should we fail to agree with the terms the workers have indicated they wish to see, then I believe they would then prefer a ballot before progressing for statutory recognition, given the numbers are very close and constantly changing as we have retirements and new recruits.”
4. Union’s further comments
7) On 26 May 2026 the Employer’s email was copied to the Union, and its comments were invited on the paragraph 22 qualifying conditions. In an email dated 27 May 2026 the Union said:
“I write further to your letter of 26 May 2026 concerning the Employer’s submissions regarding the qualifying conditions under paragraph 22(4) of Schedule A1. The Union has carefully considered the Employer’s representations and responds as follows.
Firstly, in respect of the assertion that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations, the Union notes that the statutory test requires the CAC to be satisfied, on the evidence before it, that this threshold is met. The Union’s position is that voluntary recognition has not been achieved and there remains a clear need for statutory recognition to ensure stable and effective collective bargaining arrangements. In those circumstances, the Union does not accept that the Employer has demonstrated that a ballot is required in the interests of good industrial relations.
Secondly, regarding the claim that a significant number of workers do not wish the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, the Union submits that any such evidence must be robust, credible, and representative of the bargaining unit. The Union has not been provided with sufficient detail to assess the reliability or methodology of the Employer’s evidence. In the absence of transparent and verifiable supporting material, the Union does not accept that this condition is satisfied.
Thirdly, in relation to the suggestion that there are doubts about whether a significant number of Union members wish the Union to conduct collective bargaining, the Union maintains that its membership evidence demonstrates continuing support within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union’s records indicate that membership levels remain significant, and there is no compelling evidence before the CAC to justify concluding that such doubts arise.
Taking these matters together, the Union submits that none of the qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) are met. Accordingly, the Union invites the CAC to proceed on the basis that a ballot is not required and to continue with the statutory recognition process.”
5. Considerations
8) The Panel is satisfied that the Union has majority membership in the bargaining unit. The Union has 55 members in a bargaining unit comprising of 96 workers this equates to 57.29% of the bargaining unit. In circumstances where the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union, the Schedule requires the Panel to declare the Union recognised unless it is satisfied that one or more of the qualifying conditions are met. Indeed, paragraph 22(2) states that the Panel ‘must’ declare the Union to be recognised unless we find that one or more of the qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 4 above are met.
9) The Panel has given thorough consideration to each of the qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) and its conclusions are as follows:
Condition 22(4)(a)
10. The Panel is not persuaded that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. The Employer has not provided any evidence to show how industrial relations would be impacted were a ballot not to take place.
Condition 22(4)(b)
11) The Panel is not satisfied that this condition has been met. A significant number of union members within the bargaining unit have not informed the CAC that they do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.
Condition 22(4)(c)
12) No membership evidence as defined in paragraph 22(5) had been produced that could lead the panel to conclude there were doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel is satisfied that this condition is not met.
6. Decision
13) The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule are met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “those working on B2 contracts (B2 contract roles).”
Panel
Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair
Ms Amanda Ashworth
Mr Sean Starbuck
10 June 2026