Acceptance Decision

Question 1

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) on 18 December 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Gate Gourmet London Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Team Leaders working at Gatwick Airport.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Viking House, Perimeter Road South, Gatwick Airport, West Sussex, RH6 0PQ.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 18 December 2024. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 23 December 2024.

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 Mrs. Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs. Susan Jordan and Ms. Joanna Brown. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

Question 2

2. Issues

Accepted Answer

3) 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

4) In its application the Union stated that it had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 4 November 2024. A copy of the Union’s letter dated 4 November 2024 was enclosed with the application. Following receipt of the Union’s request the Employer responded on 4 November 2024 by e mail acknowledging the request and stating, “I will pass this onto HR and come back with next steps / timings.”

5) The Union said that following receipt of the Union’s request for recognition the Employer had not proposed that ACAS be requested to assist. The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 856 and that 13 fell within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 10 Union members within the proposed bargaining unit. 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 answered:

“Unite asserts that 77% of employees in the proposed bargaining unit are in paid Unite membership. This is evidence that the majority of workers are clearly in support of gaining recognition for collective bargaining purposes. Team Leaders employed by Gate Gourmet London Ltd at Gatwick proactively approached Unite to request the union sought recognition from the employer on their behalf. 7 members and 4 non-members (total 11 employees) in the proposed bargaining unite have signed a petition in support of Unite’s request for recognition.”

6) The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was that it reflected the membership and job role of the group of workers “seeking recognition to collectively bargain their pay, leave and hours.” The Union said that it believed the proposed bargaining unite to be consistent with “supporting effective management within the workplace.” The Union further asserted that the proposed bargaining unit avoided the creation of a fragmented bargaining unit.

7) The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question as to whether there was an existing recognition agreement of which it was aware, that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “Yes. Unite currently holds recognition for all non-management, non-supervisory roles at the Gate Gourmet London Ltd, Gatwick workplace.”

8) The Union confirmed that it held a current Certificate of Independence. The Union did not specify when it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer.

9) Finally, the Union stated there had not been any previous applications in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit.

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

10) The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s formal request for recognition on

4 November 2024 it added “upon review an email was sent to the General Manager at Gatwick, Shane O’Connor dated 4th November 2024, this contained no specific details of the employee numbers or employing entity.” The Employer said the request was acknowledged on 4 November 2024 and responded to on 20 December 2024 by the HR Business Partner. The Employer attached a copy of the letter with its response. The letter dated 20 December 2024 stated “I write further to the letter you sent to Shane O’Connor, dated 4th November. We have had some changes in the local team so my apologies for the delay in response. We note that you have subsequently applied to the CAC, which we will respond to. It would also make sense to meet to discuss how a separate CBA for the Team Leaders can work in practice. We are prepared to look at voluntary recognition as that benefits everyone. We would like to arrange a meeting in the New Year to discuss this in more detail and to discuss the numbers as we have identified some minor variations.”

11) In response to the question on when the Employer had received a copy of the Union’s application from the Union the Employer said, “no details of employee numbers etc. have been received until the CAC application was received.” The Employer stated that it did not agree with the bargaining unit as proposed by the Union. It went on to add that it did not agree the bargaining unit “at this stage” because it had a “query on numbers.” The Employer said it was engaging with the Union to discuss a voluntary agreement.

12) The Employer confirmed that it has 172 employees on site at Gatwick. When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, it replied “No.” The Employer stated that it currently employed 11 Team Leaders at London Gatwick.

13) When asked whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer said, “we are seeking to clarify the details with Unite the Union as per our e mail of 20 December 2024.” When asked whether it considered that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition, the Employer said, “we do not hold details of union membership.”

14) The Employer, when asked if it was aware of any recognition agreement in place, stated “N/A”. Finally, 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 the Employer answered “N/A.” The Employer said that it was prepared to engage with Acas should this support the process.

Question 5

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

Accepted Answer

15) The Union said that it had submitted “a formal statutory request for recognition” to the Employer on 4 November 2024. The Union said, “this request included all necessary information for the employer to consider it in accordance with the statutory requirements.” The Union continued by saying that the Employer acknowledged receipt of the request on the same day. However, despite this acknowledgment, the Employer did not provide a formal written response to the request within the statutory timeframe. The Union said “consequently, after the prescribed period lapsed, Unite submitted an application to the CAC on the 18th of December 2024.” The Union said that it had fulfilled its obligations under Schedule A1 and had supplied the Employer with the relevant details, including a copy of the CAC application. The Union said that given the significant level of union membership, in the proposed bargaining unit a workplace ballot to determine support for recognition would not be necessary. The Union said that it acknowledged that since it had made the application to the CAC, the Employer had expressed a willingness to engage in discussions regarding voluntary recognition, as outlined in the Employer’s letter to the Union dated 20 December 2024. The Union said that it was willing to participate in discussions facilitated by Acas to explore the possibility of a voluntary agreement. “However, we respectfully request that this process run parallel to the statutory application to avoid unnecessary delays.”

Question 6

6. The membership and support check

Accepted Answer

16) 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, 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 full names, dates of birth and job roles (where available) 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 January 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

17) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 8 January 2025 and from the Union on 9 January 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

18) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 11 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

19) The list of members supplied by the Union contained 10 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 8, a membership level of 72.73%.

20) The petition supplied by the Union contained 11 names, of which 9 were in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represented 81.82% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 9 names, 5 were members of the Union (45.45% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 4 were non-members (36.36% of the proposed bargaining unit). The petition consisted of 2 A4 sheets. The petition had columns headed: “Print Name”, “Job Title”, “Signature” and “Date” above which was the following proposition:

“Petition in Support of Recognition Gate Gourmet London Limited

Gate Gourmet London Ltd, Viking House, Perimeter Road South, Gatwick Airport, West Sussex

Unite the Union is building support to ask your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining for Team Leaders. We have to show that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise Unite for collective bargaining for Team Leaders, 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 or a copy of this petition. The petition will be retained by Unite for the duration of the recognition campaign and any associated issues.

Unite the Union’s full up to date privacy policy can be found at www.unitetheunion.org/privacypolicy

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

The entries were dated from 15 November 2024 up to and including 21 November 2024.

21) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 9 January 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 15 January 2025.

Question 7

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

Accepted Answer

22) In a letter dated 13 January 2025 the Union said that it was pleased to note the CAC’s findings that 72.73% of the workers within the bargaining unit were members of the Union, and an even higher percentage, 81.82%, had signed the petition in support of Union recognition. The Union said that the figures clearly demonstrated a strong and unified mandate for Union representation. The Union continued by saying “on the basis of the above, and in view of the evidenced support for trade union recognition, Unite does not believe that a ballot would be appropriate or necessary in these circumstances. The CAC has accepted that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. We note that that the CAC is not entitled to ‘impose, in effect, a threshold for recognition without a ballot higher than that stipulated by the legislators. On this point, the Union relies on the decision in ISTC and Fuller Computer Industries Ltd (TUR1/29/00) which was affirmed on an application for judicial review in Re Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd, [2001] IRLR 752.”

23) The Union said that in its submission, once majority membership had been established, the Union should be awarded recognition without a ballot unless there was good reason to hold otherwise. The Union submitted that none of the three statutory exceptions applied in these circumstances. In particular, the Union submitted that holding a ballot would not be in the interests of good industrial relations. The Union said it had sought to establish good industrial relations both before and during the CAC process without any success. It was the Union’s submission, that the practical effect of a ballot would by its very nature engender an adversarial situation within the workplace, with the Union and the Employer embroiled in a divisive contest. In summary, the Union’s submission was that it had demonstrated majority membership within the bargaining unit, that none of the three statutory exceptions applied and, therefore, the Union should be granted recognition.

24) In an e mail dated 15 January 2025 the Employer said “it appears only 5 out of 11 of the group are Unite members, so the majority are non-Unite members. On that basis, the company would question whether it is right for them to seek recognition. That said, we have reached out to Unite to and have now had a response, so we are happy to meet with them to discuss further.”

Question 8

8. Considerations

Accepted Answer

25) 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.

26) 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)

27) 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.

28) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 16 to 21 above) showed that 72.73% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 17 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

29) For the reasons set out in paragraph 28 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)

30) 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.

31) For the reasons given in paragraph 28 above, the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 72.73%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of 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.

32) The Union carried out a petition of those workers in the proposed bargaining unit. As described in paragraph 20 above, 81.82% 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.

33) On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 72.73% when taken with the percentage of non-members signing the petition (36.36%) 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.

Question 9

9. Decision

Accepted Answer

34) For the reasons given in paragraphs 25-33 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs. Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mrs. Susan Jordan

Ms. Joanna Brown

21 January 2025