Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 25 July 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1392(2024)

18 April 2024

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

Amazon UK Services Limited

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 4 March 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Amazon UK Services Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “all hourly paid, level 1 employees at BHX4 with the job code FC Associate.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “BHX4 Coventry Lyons Park, Sayer Drive, Coventry CV5 9PF.” The application was received by the CAC on 5 March 2024 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 12 March 2024 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 Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Ms Claire Sullivan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 19 March 2024. The acceptance period was extended to 26 April 2024 in order to allow time for a membership check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the 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 sent a request to the Employer on 4 December 2023, and that the Employer had responded by email on 18 December 2023 stating, “we do not believe voluntary recognition is an appropriate path for our business.” The Union attached copies of the request and the Employer’s response to the application^{[footnote 1]}. The Union also attached a statement of Amanda Gearing, a Senior Organiser at GMB, dated 4 March 2024.

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 said that “applications were submitted on 11 May 2023 (withdrawn on 11 May 2023) and 12 May 2023 (withdrawn on 8 June 2023). Neither application reached the stage of the CAC deciding whether the application should be accepted.”

7)         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 it did not “currently” know the total number of workers employed by the Employer. The Union said that the Employer had stated that there were 2,749 workers in the proposed bargaining unit “as of 19 May 2023.” The Union said that the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 1,255. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said, “It is our understanding that almost half of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of GMB Union. The membership at the site has seen a significant increase over a short period of time. The membership at the site on 29 July 2022 was 106, in May 2023 had increased to 719, and now stands at around 1,263. There has been a significant increase in growth of union membership, based on their campaign (which included union recognition, and benefits associated with recognition). Given the risk of the CAC considering an atypical picture of the workforce (with large volumes of staff being recruited on a variety of contracts), or the proposed bargaining unit being manipulated by the employer, we propose that the statutory questions are considered as of the date that the CAC determines the admissibility of this application.”

9)         The Union stated the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was that it was an easily identifiable and distinct group of workers “within the site and clearly understood by both the employer and the workforce.” The Union went on to say that the workers had the same job code, as well as the same terms and conditions. The Union added “it is the largest group of workers with the same job code at BHX4, and it is simple to ascertain who is included within the bargaining unit. Based on this, we believe that the proposed bargaining unit is compatible with effective management.” In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “NO”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

10)       The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union said it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 4 March 2024.

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 under Schedule A1 for recognition on 4 December 2023 and had responded on 18 December 2024. The Employer enclosed a copy of the content of this response. In The Employer explained that it respected the rights of workers to join or not join a Union, however it went on to say it did not believe that voluntary recognition “was an appropriate path for its business.” The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 4 March 2024.

12)       The Employer said that within both the application and the attached witness statement the Union made “extremely serious and untrue accusations”. The Employer said that the accusations concerned manipulating workforce numbers; serious health and safety breaches and other employee relations matters all of which were wholly irrelevant to the questions the CAC needed to determine. The Employer went on to say “such accusations are not supported by any cogent evidence but are, instead, based upon the opinion of GMB or conclusions GMB has reached which have no grounding in fact, but which support GMB’s objectives. Given that it is unusual to file a witness statement with an application for recognition, and the irrelevance of the matters referred to, it can only be concluded that GMB have taken this course of action to garner press attention, and in order to influence (whether consciously or otherwise) the discretionary decisions of the Panel.” The Employer said that given the irrelevance of the allegations made “and the apparent ulterior motive in making them” it did not propose addressing them directly unless the CAC requested that it did so, however, the Employer said that it should be noted that: (i) the allegations were strongly denied; and (ii) the Employer had a response to put forward if the CAC considered the matters raised by the Union in the witness statement were relevant to the application.

13)       In response to the question on whether the Employer had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union the Employer said “No.” When asked whether it agreed the proposed bargaining unit the Employer said that the question was not applicable at this stage and that it reserved the right to address the issue of the bargaining unit in due course. The Employer went on to explain “GMB has made three requests for recognition, each citing different bargaining units: GMB made a previous recognition application (TUR1/1321(2023)) which was withdrawn in June 2023. Before withdrawing, GMB confirmed that its proposed bargaining unit, which used the term ‘FC Associates’, meant ‘all hourly paid, level 1 employees at BHX4 with the job code FC Associate’. GMB made a second request for recognition in August 2023. In this request it narrowed its proposed bargaining unit to ‘FC Associates employed on Permanent Contracts’. Amazon confirmed to GMB in its reply to that request, that it understood this description to exclude those employees that it employed on fixed term contracts. This understanding was not challenged. The most recent request was received on 4 December 2023 and sought voluntary recognition for ‘All hourly paid, level 1 employees at BHX4 with the job code FC Associate’. GMB has, on this occasion, not made any reference to fixed term or permanent status. It is understood therefore that, on this occasion, its proposed bargaining unit includes those employees on fixed term contracts. This is the same description that appears in the Application. Amazon reserves its right to amend this response following any clarification of the union’s proposed bargaining unit.” The Employer further added that unless and until the application was ruled admissible, the question as to the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining did not arise. The Employer said it wished to reserve the right to set out its position on the bargaining unit should the application be accepted however at this stage the Union’s proposed bargaining unit “should not be treated as agreed.”

14)       The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

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. The Employer said that the total number of workers within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit as of Tuesday, 12 March 2024 was 3,058. The Employer said workforce numbers fluctuated regularly and this number would change. As of Friday, 15 March 2024 the total number of workers within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was anticipated by the Employer to be 3,085. In relation to accusations over manipulation of workforce numbers the Employer said that an application was submitted to the CAC on 12 May 2023 by the Union but was withdrawn on 8 June 2023 when the Union became aware it had insufficient support at BHX4 for recognition. The Employer said that the Union had relied on historical workforce information published by a press outlet to estimate the approximate percentage membership at site and that this information was incorrect. The Employer went on to say “instead of accepting that this was their error, GMB made unsubstantiated allegations to the CAC, and again in the press (as is its custom and practice) that Amazon had flooded the bargaining unit. This was completely untrue, yet GMB has continued to consistently repeat this accusation in an effort to make it appear true. There are a number of reasons why its workforce numbers at its various types of facility fluctuate over the course of time and the various statements made within the witness statement are misguided and/or were only correct at the applicable point in history.” The Employer said “Amazon opened a new fulfilment centre (a different type of operation to BHX4) in the local area in Autumn 2023. As such, in October 2023, 182 employees transferred to the new fulfilment centre. This, together with natural attrition and increases in volume, led to recruitment. Amazon is a seasonal business, managing fluctuations in customer demand at various points throughout the year such as Prime Day, Black Friday and Christmas. In order to effectively manage those fluctuations, Amazon routinely recruits additional employees.”

16)       The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

17)       In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, that the Union had made inconsistent statements to the CAC and the media. The Employer said “GMB has stated at paragraph 11 of the Application that: ‘Based on our membership system, there are 1,255 members of GMB employed within the proposed bargaining unit.’ However, GMB go on to state at paragraph 12 of the Application that ‘It is our understanding that almost half of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the GMB union…membership at site… now stands at around 1,263.” The Employer went on to say “in addition, on the same day GMB submitted this Application to the CAC, it made a statement to the BBC, which included the following: ‘GMB has well above half of the 2,300 workers Amazon claims it has at the site’, suggesting either the figures quoted in the Application, or those quoted to the media (if not both) are incorrect.” The Employer said that as a result there could be no confidence that the numbers supplied were accurate. The Employer reiterated that it was a seasonal business, managing fluctuations in customer demand at various points throughout the year. The Employer said that in order to effectively manage those fluctuations, it routinely recruited additional workers and as such, there was a number of joiners and leavers each month with the number being considerably greater in some months than others and increasing more generally as customer demand increased. The Employer said that it was therefore highly unlikely that the Union’s membership database was accurate. The Employer said that it was concerned that many of the members referred to in the application “may not be FC Associates; not be employed by Amazon (there are third party service providers on site, for example, security, cleaning, canteen and facilities management); be employed by third party carriers delivering to/from BHX4; have ceased to work for Amazon; have ceased to be members of GMB; have transferred internally out of BHX4 to another site; never been employed at BHX4; or never been members of GMB. In light of all of the above, Amazon requests that there is a full membership and support check.”

18)       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 the Employer said “Even if GMB’s own figures are used (please note it is not accepted that these figures are correct), the Application refers to 1,255 members in the proposed bargaining unit, which equates to 41.04% of the proposed bargaining unit. In addition, not all of those members can be said to support trade union recognition. …. the most recent ballots for industrial action, which GMB say in paragraph 12 of the Application are about ‘…union recognition, and benefits associated with recognition’, demonstrate a much lower level of support for recognition than is suggested by the headline membership figure”. The Employer said “GMB relies on membership increasing since 29 July 2022 as demonstrating support for recognition. It is not accepted that any membership increase is necessarily because those employees who have joined GMB support recognition. Slow growth in six years despite a high profile, aggressive and sustained recruitment campaign since the launch of BHX4 in 2018, GMB membership in the proposed bargaining unit has only increased to 41.04% (based upon GMB’s asserted figures).” The Employer asserted that joining the Union was accompanied by the incentives of strike pay which was only payable to Union members. “GMB has been actively recruiting members in support of that action promising £70 per day strike pay. GMB has made it very clear that strike pay is only payable to members. As such, there has been a significant financial incentive for employees to join (£2,170 tax free for all 31 strike days) …….Signing up to overtime and then taking part in the strike entitled members to £70 (tax free) over and above their usual earnings for their normal working week. This activity has continued consistently through subsequent strike periods. In addition, employees working on the night shift prior to industrial action commencing at 6am the following morning have identified and exploited an opportunity to double recover. They will work as normal on their scheduled shift (the night prior to a strike day) and then wait for the picket to commence, attend the picket and receive £70 strike pay (i.e., receive both salary and strike pay). Once this opportunity became widely known, membership numbers increased.”

19)       The Employer said that recognition was not a familiar concept to many workers and that the Union had not explained in the course of its campaign how collective bargaining actually worked leading a number of workers to believe that they would be guaranteed to receive £15 per hour if the Union become recognised. The Employer said that the Union had not explained that collective bargaining required an agreement from an Employer. The Employer said that it regularly reviewed pay through a well-established process and that the Union had consistently misrepresented its role and claimed responsibility for such awards which was likely to have contributed towards recruitment and belief amongst workers that the Union would have the power to force a pay rise. The Employer went on to say “GMB consistently and aggressively raise unsubstantiated allegations around the working environment, use of technology, monitoring and performance management particularly in the press and social media campaigns, suggesting that these (untrue and unsubstantiated) issues would be addressed if GMB were to be recognised. These allegations have similarly appeared, without relevance, within the witness statement supporting the Application. These allegations have nothing to do with collective bargaining but serve to mislead employees as to the potential outcome of a recognition process.” The Employer said that in addition to urging individuals to join the Union in support of the strikes, the Union had promoted a number of other reasons to join “none of which directly refer to joining, equating to a desire for collective bargaining.  All the above is contrary to the assertion that a majority of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition.”

20)       When the Employer was asked if it was 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, the Employer stated that an application was received on 11 May 2023 but withdrawn the same day. A further application was submitted on 12 May 2023 but was withdrawn on 8 June 2023 “when GMB became aware it had insufficient support at BHX4 for recognition, having relied on historical workforce information published by a press outlet to estimate the approximate percentage membership at site.”

21)       When asked whether the Employer consented to its contact details being provided to Acas the Employer said “If/when it becomes appropriate and agreed that ACAS will assist the parties, consent will be provided for contact details to be forwarded to ACAS.”

5. The membership and support check

22)       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. 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, dates of birth and job roles (where available). 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 12 March 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.

23)       The information requested by the CAC was received from the Employer and the Union on 15 March 2024. The Panel is satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

24)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 3,088 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

25)       The list of members supplied by the Union contained 1,337 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 1,100, a membership level of 35.62%.

26)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 26 March 2024 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 11 April 2024.

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

27)       In a letter dated 4 April 2024 the Employer said “having considered the position, Amazon wishes to refer the CAC Panel back to the extensive comments already made in the detailed response document submitted on 12 March 2024. I can also confirm that, should the application be deemed admissible under paragraph 11(2)(b) of Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Schedule”), Amazon would not, for the purposes of this application, challenge the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit at this specific site. If the application is deemed admissible, the parties would therefore not require the period provided for in paragraph 18(1) of the Schedule in order to agree an appropriate bargaining unit.”

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

28)       In a letter dated 11 April 2024 the Union commented on the Employer’s response document dated 12 March 2024 and the membership and support check. The Union said, “nothing in Amazon’s Response or accompanying documents suggests the poor working conditions at BHX4 are not exactly as our members describe, or that their business model is not anti-union as a matter of deliberate choice.” The Union stated it was untrue that workers had become Union members for financial gain and/or on the basis of untrue assurances about the benefits of collective bargaining. The Union said that being a union member was financially beneficial “it is accompanied by real benefits in terms of legal representation, strike pay and workplace assistance.” The Union went on to say “the GMB chooses to support its members, and it does so entirely properly, so they can take lawful industrial action after a ballot, if they wish to do so. Poverty, job insecurity and fear of reprisal are three of the key reasons many people feel unable to take industrial action. The power, the size, and the financial resource of Amazon means the current playing field is not fair. That is why GMB chooses, lawfully, to use the collective resources of its members to pay strike pay as a benefit of union membership.”

29)       The Union said that it was entirely correct that only Union members received strike pay and legal protection from the Union and that these were two of the basic benefits of union membership, available only to members. The Union said that the strike pay provided by the Union was “less than the gross payment Associates receive for working a 10 hour shift. But we hope and believe this pay and the promise of legal protection are essential to ensuring members can continue to live while asserting their legal rights. GMB set the times for the strikes to overlap both the day and night shifts, so as many Associates who wish to attend are able to do so. Where an Associate was rostered to work and did not do so during a strike period, they are entitled to strike pay. It does not matter if it was an additional shift.” The Union said that it did not “guarantee” members a pay rise to £15 per hour but that it would fight for and seek to collectively bargain for that hourly rate as the Union believed it to be a fair and living wage. The Union went on to say “Amazon’s allegation is that GMB has claimed credit for a nationwide bonus and some modest pay increases as a result of its strike action. With respect, it is clear that Amazon has increased pay when it would have preferred not to as a result of GMB’s activity. Prior to the wage increases, managers at BHX4 repeatedly told Associates that pay was not going to be increased. If Amazon wish to allege that their pay increases and bonuses are entirely unrelated to GMB’s collective organising, they should make disclosure of all internal materials evidencing this. The reality of industrial relations is that where there is a substantial union organising effort, a standard employer response is usually to make modest improvements to pay and benefits and say that union representation is both irrelevant to the changes and also unnecessary.”

30)       The Union said that the “working environment, use of technology, monitoring and performance management in other words, health and safety, terms and conditions, pay” were issues for the collective bargaining process, and should the Union be recognised “are exactly the matters about which we will challenge and seek to negotiate better terms for our members. GMB’s members wish these topics to be raised and improved as a result of collective bargaining, and this is what GMB will do once it is recognised.” The Union said that in relation to recruitment patterns the largest recruitment drives in 2023 took place in April and October. “Prime Day is in August; Black Friday in November; and Christmas in December. By contrast, the Committee will note that our union recognition letters, applications, and membership checks took place in April and May 2023 and then again in November and December 2023. If Amazon continues to assert that their 2023 recruitment drives at BHX4 related to consumer demands only, we consider it necessary for the Committee to scruitinise these statements. Proper disclosure from the company on this issue would be necessary including an opportunity for us to consider and reply to any evidence put before the Committee by the company.”

31)       The Union went on to say that the comparison check undertaken by the CAC of the names on the Union membership list with the list of workers in the proposed bargaining unit supplied by the Employer indicated 1,100 names and dates of birth were common to both and that this amounted to 35.62% of the bargaining unit. The Union said “the comparison check indicated that 237 of the names and dates of birth supplied by GMB Union were not identical to the list supplied by Amazon. We have considered this list very carefully, contacted the relevant individuals where appropriate, and can confirm that 19 of those members have informed us they have moved to other Amazon sites and 25 are no longer working for the company. 82 of the same 237 have confirmed to us again that they are GMB members and remain employed by Amazon at BHX4. We think some of the discrepancies were caused by names being misspelt or typos in DOBs. The majority of our members fill in their application forms by hand and a significant number of members do not have English as their first language. This leads to inevitable errors in transcription and retyping of data, and many names may be recorded or transliterated into English differently. This means, at the time of the comparison check, at least 1,182 members of GMB Union were in the bargaining unit. This is 38.3% of the bargaining unit.”

32)       The Union said that despite the high turnover of workers and movement of workers around fulfilment centres the number of Union members at “BHX4” had risen dramatically in a relatively short period of time. The Union said “In May 2023, a membership check was undertaken as part of a CAC application and highlighted at least 681 agreed names. In less than a year, the number of GMB members at BHX4 has risen again drastically. And this rise in the number of GMB Union members has occurred against a backdrop of aggressive and consistent anti-union activities by Amazon. In the face of relentless anti-union messaging, GMB membership is at least 38.2% of the bargaining unit - and this number has increased again since the check – so we are confident of majority support amongst F1 Associates at BHX4. If a ballot is called, given the recent rapid rises in union membership, the inevitable barriers to union recruitment caused by Amazon’s aggressive anti-union campaign, we are confident, in a secret ballot, a majority of the F1 associates will support collective bargaining.”

8. Considerations

33)       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 relevant parts of the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

34)       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)

35)       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. 

36)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 22 to 26 above) showed that 35.62% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 23 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

37)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 36 above 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)

38)       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.

39)       For the reasons given in paragraph 36 above, the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 35.62%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of persuasive 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. Although there is a dispute about the extent to which employees joined the Union for financial gain and/or for reasons which do not relate to a desire for collective bargaining, Union membership of 35.62% in a proposed bargaining unit of some 3,088 is a relatively high proportion. There is also inevitable overlap between joining and supporting a Union for financial reasons and a likelihood of support for recognition. Although there is some dispute about the extent to which union members are likely to support recognition, in our experience it is at least likely that they would support it. We also note that the Employer did not provide any documentary evidence to show that any members of the Union would be unlikely to favour recognition. The Panel has also not received such evidence from any other source. In our experience, in such circumstances, support of recognition would be likely to surpass 35.62% by a margin which would take the total support to over 50%.

40)       On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided 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. In making this decision the Panel considered only the information relevant to the current application before the CAC and the statutory criteria for acceptance of applications. It is not for the Panel to consider or comment on the background to the application and the wider relationship between the Employer and the Union as outlined in the statements provided by the Union and in the Employer’s response document.

9. Decision

41)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 33-40 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Ms Claire Sullivan

18 April 2024

---

1. The Employer stated within its response document that the email from the Employer dated 18 December 2023 in response to the Union’s request for voluntary recognition which the Union had attached to its application was not a full copy of the e mail. ↩