Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 3 March 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1447(2025)

3 March 2025

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:

Unite the Union

and

Culina Logistics Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 17 January 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Culina Logistics Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all warehouse operatives (currently referred to as General Warehouse Operatives and Warehouse Operatives) working at the Culina Logistics Warehouse at the Port of Tilbury (Culina Logistics Ltd, Berth 45, Port of Tilbury, Tilbury, Essex RM18 7EH).” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Culina Logistics Ltd, Berth 45, Port of Tilbury, Tilbury, Essex RM18 7EH.” The application was received by the CAC on 17 January 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application that same day.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 24 January 2025 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  Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr David Cadger and Mr Steve Gillan. 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 31 January 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 28 February 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said 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 9 October 2024. The Union said that the Employer responded on 16 October 2024 stating that it was willing to engage with Acas for a “voluntary count.” The Union said that on 22 November 2024 it met with the Employer and Acas. It was agreed that for the purposes of the voluntary discussions with Acas a proposed bargaining unit consisting of “all warehouse operatives (currently referred to as General Warehouse Operatives and Warehouse Operatives) working at the Culina Logistics Warehouse at the Port of Tilbury would be used. A copy of the Union’s letter of 9 October 2024 and the Employer’s written response dated 14 October 2024 were attached to the application.  For the sake of completeness, the Union also attached the “membership and petition check – Acas report” dated 10 December 2024.^{[footnote 1]}

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 proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties, and the Union had agreed to this. The Union gave the details of the Acas contact.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 380. The Union stated that there were 300 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer agreed 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 answered, “list of members will be provided to CAC – 80 members.” The Union further added “list of petition favouring recognition will be sent to CAC – number of effective petition signatures 163 of which 124 are not Unite members.”

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “this is a discrete and clearly identifiable group of employees who share the same terms and conditions of employment (save for hourly rates of pay), and who all carry out roles of similar scope, i.e. warehousing functions within a single workplace. All these employees fall under the same line management structure.” The Union said that the bargaining unit had 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 17 January 2025.

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 9 October 2024. The Employer said that it had responded to the request in writing and attached a copy of the response. The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 17 January 2025. 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, “this was part of the proposed voluntary discussions with Acas when they were verifying the current number of colleagues employed versus those with union membership and those who had signed the petition, however on review of the details there is a group of colleagues that have not been included that make up the Warehouse population and so there is not an agreement.” The Employer continued by saying “there are a group of colleagues who have not been included (6 hygiene operatives) in the bargaining unit that make up the Warehouse population. We would expect the warehouse population to be treated as one large group. We believed discussions were ongoing and a simple error has been made that these colleagues have been overlooked.” The Employer said that the workers in the proposed bargaining unit did not work under the same terms and conditions of employment “due to the acquisition of the business and thus a TUPE in July 2020 (19 remaining colleagues).” The Employer said that although the line management was the same “there are key elements that have to be managed differently which would affect the scope and fairness of the bargaining unit including:

• Break Entitlement

• Hours of work linked to pre-existing shift patterns

• Sick Pay

• Holiday Year

• Death in Service Entitlement

• Triggers linked to absence policy.”

11)       The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and said that the Union had excluded the Hygiene Operatives from the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that 19 of the Warehouse workers were on different terms and conditions to the majority of the bargaining unit and that there were key differences to some of the aspects of how they were employed.^{[footnote 2]}The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered “N/A.”

12)       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 answered “we dispute the figures outlined in the petition supporting recognition. It is understood that the majority of our colleagues were not provided with unbiased or objective information regarding what they were signing.” The Employer continued by saying that due to its ongoing efforts and investment the feedback from its “pulse survey” showed that workers were highly satisfied with the shift patterns/number of hours worked, the training received, the role they performed, the work environment and the way people worked together. The Employer referred to the CAC guide to the parties and the fact that documents supporting the Union’s application had not been provided to the Employer. The Employer said that it had received a copy of the template petition from the Union but that the Union had said that the actual petition was confidential and would not be shared with the Employer. The Employer said that if the petition was being used to support the Union’s application for recognition, then it should be shared with the Employer.

13)       The Employer answered “N/A” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and when asked if it had 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 and that Acas had already been involved.

5. The Union’s comments on the Employer’s response

14)       In an email dated 29 January 2025 the Union said that it would be agreeable to expanding the bargaining unit to include Hygiene Operatives and had written to the Employer seeking agreement to such a bargaining unit. The Union said that the Employer had responded by stating it would like to seek the further assistance of Acas before committing to the bargaining unit and that the Union was happy to do this. The Union said that for clarity it did not agree with the Employer’s claim that the bargaining unit should exclude “a small number of TUPE’d-in warehouse operatives.” The Union went on to say that the Employer in its response had not advanced any evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would not be likely to support recognition. The Union concluded by saying that the satisfaction scores presented by the Employer were not a measure of support for, or opposition to, recognition.

6. The membership and support check

15)       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 petition 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) as well as a copy of its petition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 6 February 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

16)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 11 February 2025 and from the Union on 10 February 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

17)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 272 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 95 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 81 a membership level of 29.78%.

18)       The petition supplied by the Union contained 287 signatures dating from 23 August 2024 up to and including 3 February 2025. Of the 287 signatures 188 were in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represented 69.12% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 188 signatures, 59 were members of the Union (21.69% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 129 were non-members (47.43% of the proposed bargaining unit). The petition consisted of 16 pages of A4 paper and the columns on each page were headed “PRINT NAME,” “JOB TITLE,” “SIGNATURE” and “DATE.” The top of each sheet read as follows:

PETITION IN SUPPORT OF UNION RECOGNITION

Culina Logistics Limited

Unite the Union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise Unite for collective bargaining, please sign the petition.

This petition and your personal details will be kept confidential by Unite the Union and will be shared with the Central Arbitration Committee only, who will use these to confidentially verify the level of support for our collective bargaining application. Your employer will not receive your details of a copy of this petition. The petition will be retained by Unite for the duration of the recognition campaign and any associated issues.

I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on pay, hours and holidays.

19)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 12 February 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 17 February 2025.

7. Summary of the parties comments following the membership and support check

20)       The Union in an email dated 12 February 2025 stated that its application should be accepted as the Union had provided evidence which showed that at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, and that a majority of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of that bargaining unit. The Employer in a letter dated 17 February 2025 said that it accepted that members of the union constituted at least 10 per cent of the workers within the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer went on to say “regarding the petition we have a meeting with Acas and Unite the Union today to discuss the next steps regarding the majority of other workers within the relevant bargaining unit.”

8. Considerations

21)       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. 

22)       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 12. 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)

23)       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. 

24)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 15 to 19 above) showed that 29.78% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 16 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

25)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 24 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)

26)       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.

27)       The Union carried out a petition of those workers in the proposed bargaining unit. As described in paragraph 18 above, 69.12% of the proposed bargaining unit signed the petition. The Panel has not received any statements from those workers in the proposed bargaining unit who had signed the petition stating that they wished to withdraw their support.

28)       On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 29.78% when taken with the percentage of non-members signing the petition (47.43%) shows 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.

9. Decision

29)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 21-28 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr David Cadger

Mr Steve Gillan

3 March 2025

---

1. Acas has the explicit authority to carry out confidential checks of union membership lists and employee lists if requested to do so by the parties to assist negotiations. In joint talks held on 22 November 2024 it was agreed that, for the purposes of seeking voluntary resolution of the Union’s recognition request to Culina Logistics (Tilbury), an agreed group on which to conduct the checks was “Warehouse Operatives and General Warehouse Operatives”. The membership check was undertaken to validate the number of employees employed in that group who were also members of Unite the Union. An additional Acas check was agreed to consider Unite’s petition in support of its recognition request. ↩

2. See Paragraph 10 above. ↩