Acceptance Decision

Question 1

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 20 September 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Facility Management UK Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All Facility Management UK Limited employees within the Customer Solutions Division who are contracted to work for the UK.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Workers within the bargaining unite work from home but are aligned to one of the two addresses below:

9 Little Park Street, Coventry CV1 2UR,

Fora, 16-19 Eastcastle, London W1W 8DY.”

The application was received by the CAC on 20 September 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 4 October 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 Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Rob Lummis and Mrs Janice Beards. 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 4 October 2024. Following a request from the Union, on 14 October 2024 the Panel Chair granted a stay in proceedings to allow time for the parties to meet to discuss voluntary recognition. As no agreement could be reached despite extensions of the stay period, the stay ended on 16 January 2025 and the statutory process resumed. The acceptance period was further extended to allow time for the 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 14 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 stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 2 September 2024. The Union stated that it received a response from the Employer on 11 September 2024, in which the Employer said, “Apologies I was on leave and then travelling for business. I will now forward this to the Business Unit and revert to you regarding same.” A copy of the Union’s request was 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 answered, “N/A.” 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 180. The Union said that there were 12 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 6 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 7 of the 12 staff in its proposed bargaining unit had signed a petition for recognition.

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because all of the other staff within Facility Management UK Limited were Ireland based and were therefore covered by the bargaining unit within Ireland. The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware that covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9) 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 20 September 2024.

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

10) In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 2 September 2024. The Employer responded a week later, informing the Union that it would “send this to the relevant Business Unit.”

11) The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 20 September 2024. 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 now agree the proposed bargaining unit.

12) When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”, further adding that, “the company would propose entering the voluntary process with the union for this matter.”

13) When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application, the Employer said, “Yes pending recruitment.” The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14) When asked to give reasons if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that currently there were 10, but this did not however amount to a disagreement with the Union’s estimate.

15) The Employer did not comment 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

16) Finally, the Employer answered “No” when asked both whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, and whether it had received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

Question 5

5. The membership and support check

Accepted Answer

17) 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 21 January 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

18) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 24 January 2025. By an e-mail of the same date the Union informed the Case Manager that due to absence from work, the information was not accessible. The Union subsequently submitted its membership information on 29 January 2025 and informed the Case Manager that it had been locked out of the online petition software and therefore had been unable to download the required information while they were still absent from work. The Union explained that its member “was going to send round an electronic document today and get back the signatures on a new petition by Friday (31 January)”. The Employer was informed of the delay and invited to submit a revised list by the 31 January 2025. Both the Union’s petition, and a revised list from the Employer, were received by the CAC on 31 January 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

19) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 10 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 6 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 4, a membership level of 40%.

20) The Union’s petition’s petition comprised of 1 A4 sheet and contained 6 names/signatures. Each page was headed with the Union’s logo and was set out as follows:

“PETITION IN SUPPORT OF RECOGNITION AT FACILITIES MANAGEMENT UK LIMITED

We the undersigned wish for Facilities Management UK Limited to recognise Unite the Union for collective bargaining on pay, hours, and holiday in respect to all workers within the Customer Solution Division who are contracted to work in the UK.”

Beneath the proposition was a table with 4 columns headed: “PRINT NAME”, “SIGNATURE”, “DATE”, and “JOB TITLE”. The dates on the petition ranged between 28 January 2025 and 30 January 2025.

21) The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 5 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 50% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of the 5 signatories, 4 were members of the Union (40% of the bargaining unit) and 1 was a non-member (10% of the bargaining unit).

22) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 31 January 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by the close of business on 4 February 2025.

Question 6

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

Accepted Answer

23) In an email to the CAC dated 5 February 2025 the Union stated that unfortunately, due to the length of time submitting its application and allowing extensions to the Employer to sit down and address the recognition agreement, staff had since left.

24) The Union further added that “We believe that the employee count should be 9 though as there were 11 when we started, three left and two have been hired. However, we do have the number required and are happy to go to a ballot if the employer wishes to do so.”

25) In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 31 January 2025, the Employer said that as an initial comment it had read that one name from the Union’s list did not appear on the list submitted by the Employer. The Employer explained that the company report was based on the initial application by the Union, that had listed two business addresses, and that this was used by the Employer to extract the names of the personnel within the bargaining unit.

26) The Employer said that notwithstanding that this may not “tip the scales” either way in terms of percentage figures for the application, it would investigate as a further group may have been omitted. The Employer said that its comments “are to assure you that if there was any omission it was merely an administrative oversight based on the data provided in the original application.”

Question 7

7. Considerations

Accepted Answer

27) 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.

28) 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)

29) 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.

30) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17 - 19 above) showed that 40% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 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)

31) 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.

32) As well as establishing that 40% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were union members, the Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of workers provided by the Employer (described in paragraphs 20 – 21 above) indicated that 5 of the 6 petition signatories were identifiable as workers within the bargaining unit, a support level of 50%. Of those there were 4 union members (40%) and 1 non-member in the bargaining unit (10%).

33) 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.

Question 8

8. Decision

Accepted Answer

34) For the reasons given in paragraphs 28 - 33 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr Rob Lummis

Ms Janice Beards

14 February 2025