Acceptance Decision

Question 1

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 January 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Evtec Aluminium (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All Operatives, Technicians, Forklift and Maintenance workers up to and including the level of Team Leader / Coordinator (Directs), excluding all management and Indirects as listed, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable Manager, Business & Process Improvement, Business & Process Improvement Supervisor, Commercial & Legal Assistant, Continuous Improvement Engineer, Cost Estimator, Financial Accountant, Financial Controller, HR Manager, HR Officer, Management Accountant, Master Scheduler, MP & L Manager, Payroll Manager, Project Engineer, Quality Engineer and Shift Manager, this list is not exhaustive. Located at: Chelmarsh, Daimler Green, Coventry, CV6 3LT.” The application was received by the CAC on 3 January 2025 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 10 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 Richard Fulham, and Mr Paul Moloney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 17 January 2025. The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 11 February 2025.

Question 2

2. Issues

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 3

3. Summary of the Union’s application

Accepted Answer

5) In its application to the CAC the Union explained that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 12 December 2024. The Employer responded by letter dated 20 December 2024, in which it “Rejected on the grounds that the employer wishes to operate a works council.” A copy of the Union’s request, and the Employer’s letter of 20 December 2024, were attached 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 said that it had submitted an application to the CAC on 20 November 2024, CAC Ref: TUR1/1440 (2024), and that the application was withdrawn prior to acceptance. 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.

7) The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 150. The Union said that there were 90 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 70 were members of the Union. When asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said that it had undertaken a digital petition to evidence support for recognition within the workforce. The Union said that a copy of the petition could be provided to the CAC on a confidential basis.

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because its members at Evtec had instructed the Union to pursue statutory recognition with the Employer “after the company removed the voluntary recognition without good reason, even though Unite have a substantial level of membership.” The Union stated that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

9) When asked whether it was aware of any existing recognition agreement covering any workers in the bargaining unit, the Employer said “No as the company removed the voluntary recognition with Unite and imposed a works council, opposing the workforces wishes.”

10) The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union said that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 3 January 2025.

Question 4

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

Accepted Answer

11) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 12 December 2024. When asked how it had responded to the Union’s request, the Employer answered, “The request was rejected on the basis that the Employer wishes that the voice of the entire workforce is represented, and to this end, it is committed to strengthening the role of the Works Committee.”

12) The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 3 January 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer believed that Indirects should also be included in the bargaining unit together with Directs. Indirects played a critical role in supporting direct labour. Including indirect labour in the bargaining unit ensured that the bargaining unit was compatible with effective management. Decisions taken through collective bargaining were likely to have a direct impact on their working conditions responsibilities, and employment.

13) When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”.

14) The Employer disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application and said that it was difficult to state a number as the Union had included some workers from within the “Indirect” group but had excluded others. The Employer said that a bargaining unit comprising all Directs and Indirects consisted of 152 workers. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

15) The Employer disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, stating that it was not aware of the membership numbers. The Employer said that it had requested a redacted list from the Union, but this had not been provided.

16) 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 that it was unable to comment, as it was unaware of the current membership numbers of the Union. The Employer said that it did however believe that recognition was unlikely to be supported by those workers who were not members of the union. The Employer said that its view was based on positive feedback received from workers regarding the operation of the Works Committee, which they considered effective in representing their views and addressing workplace issues.

17) Finally, when asked whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer explained that a previous application was made by the Union on 20 November 2024 in respect of all staff and operatives (Directs) and that this was subsequently withdrawn on 11 December 2024

Question 5

5. The membership and support check

Accepted Answer

18) 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 of the Union’s petition. 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 a copy of its petition. It was explicitly agreed with both 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 17 January 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

19) The information requested from Union was received by the CAC on 20 January 2025, and from the Employer on 23 January 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

20) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 138 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 69 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 67, a membership level of 48.55%.

21) The Union also provided the results of an electronic petition. In its covering e-mail the Union explained that it had provided its “e-petition results from our membership evidencing support for recognition”. The Union further explained that the petition had unique links attached to each individual member’s account, and this was sent out to their private preferred contact method stored within its membership database. This petition was for Unite members only.

22) The results of the petition were set out within a spreadsheet, which contained the following headings, “IP”, “Submission ID”, Submission Date”, “Membership Number”, “First Name”, “Surname”, and “Would you Vote in support of Recognition?”. Beneath the heading “Submission Date”, the dates ranged between 17 October 2024 and 19 December 2024. In answer to the question “Would you Vote in support of Recognition?”, for each individual, it stated “Yes”.

23) The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 67 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 48.55% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of the 67 signatories, all were members of the Union (48.55% of the bargaining unit).

24) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 23 January 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by the close of business on 28 January 2025.

Question 6

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

Accepted Answer

25) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 24 January 2025 the Union stated that it believed it had clearly defined its proposed bargaining unit upon its second application.

26) The Union said that it wished firstly to address the job roles that it believed the Employer had added to the membership and support check. The Union maintained that those roles fall outside the very specific list of job titles outlined within description of its proposed bargaining unit. The Union explained that it had intentionally defined the bargaining unit with precision to avoid any ambiguity regarding its scope, ensuring that only those roles explicitly described would be included.

27) The Union said that it was the Employer’s second attempt to inflate the numbers of the bargaining unit with inappropriate job titles, and that the clear defined area of the application was “All Operatives, Technicians, Forklift and Maintenance workers up to and including the level of Team Leader / Coordinator.” The Union asked that the roles of Apprentice, all Supervisors, Production Material – Goods In & Control and Site Services were removed as they were not in its proposed bargaining unit.

28) The Union said that it was particularly concerned that “accepting an inflated bargaining unit at this stage could play into the three-year bar, restricting the union’s ability to revisit or modify the bargaining unit in the future.”

29) The Union finally added that notwithstanding the introduction of additional roles, it remained confident it had met the requirements set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule.

30) In an email to the CAC dated 28 January 2025 the Employer agreed that based on the findings of the report, the Union had exceeded the required 10% threshold as required by paragraph 36(1)(a).

31) The Employer said with regard to the second test at paragraph 36(1)(b), it believed the evidence demonstrated that support for recognition fell short of the required majority, and that the absence of any petition signatories from non-members suggested that the Union’s support did not extend across the entire bargaining unit.

Question 7

7. Considerations

Accepted Answer

32) 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.

33) 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 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

34) 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. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 - 20 above) showed that 48.55% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 19 above, 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 proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

35) Under paragraph 36(1)(b) 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. For the reasons given in paragraph 34 above the level of membership of the Unions is 48.55%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition. Although the Employer points to positive feedback about the operation of the Works Committee we were not provided with any evidence of such feedback. In any event, the figures in this case were already very close to exceeding 50%. As has been set out, the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 48.55% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (67 out of 138 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraphs 21 - 23 above). Of those who had signed the petition all 67 were Union members (48.55% of the proposed bargaining unit).

36) On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, that 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.

37) Finally, the Panel notes the Union’s comments and concerns, set out in submissions above, that it believed the information provided by the Employer for the purpose of check, included a number of job roles that did not fall within the description of its proposed bargaining unit. In view of its decision that the admissibility criteria been met the Panel has not found it necessary to investigate the Union’s concerns for the purposes of this decision. However, this does not prevent the Panel from undertaking further investigations at a later stage of the process should it consider this to be appropriate.

Question 8

8. Decision

Accepted Answer

38) For the reasons given in paragraphs 33 - 36 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Paul Moloney

11 February 2025