Acceptance Decision

Question 1

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 18 December 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Natco Foods Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Employees working within the Warehouse at Unit 5, Silverdale Road, Off Pump Lane, Hayes, Middlesex, UB3 3BL.” The application was received by the CAC on 19 December 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 30 December 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 Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Martin Kirke, and Mr Paul Noon OBE. 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 7 January 2025. The acceptance period was extended until 21 January 2025 in order 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.

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 said that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 28 November 2024. The Union explained that the Employer had confirmed receipt of its request in an e-mail dated 2 December 2024, and that subsequent e-mails followed in which the Employer had asked the Union to provide information on the number of employees, who worked at the Warehouse. The Union said that it had responded, informing the Employer that it would provide additional information at a later stage. The Union said that by e-mails dated 5 December 2024 and 7 December 2024 it had chased the Employer for a response to its request, but no formal response was received. A copy of the Union’s request, along with further correspondence exchanged between the parties, were attached to its application.

6) 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, according to its 2023 accounts, the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 181. The Union said that there were 30 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 16 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 the majority of workers within its proposed bargaining unit were members of Unite. The Union further added that 17 workers had signed a petition in support of Unite recognition.

8) The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because it covered a discrete, coherent and readily identifiable group of workers within the Employer’s workforce. The Union said that the workers in its proposed bargaining unit shared the same workplace, had similar job roles, and they also shared the same set of terms and conditions. The Union stated that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

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 18 December 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 28 November 2024. When asked how it had responded to the Union’s request, the Employer answered, “Various e-mails requesting more information about the bargaining unit proposed by Unite.”

11) The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 18 December 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, however 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”.

13) The Employer said that it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14) The Employer did not disagree with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, nor did it 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.

15) Finally, the Employer was not aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, nor was it aware of any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

Question 5

5. The membership and support check

Accepted Answer

16) 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 31 December 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties.

17) The information requested from Employer was received by the CAC on 7 January 2025, and from the Union on 8 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 33 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 15 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 15, a membership level of 45.45%

19) The Union’s petition comprised of 1 A4 sheet and contained 17 names/signatures.

The petition was headed with the Union’s logo and was set out as follows:

“UNITE THE UNION YOUR UNION for

Natco Cash & Carry Limited

Petition Supporting Unite Recognition

We the undersigned members of Unite the Union support the application for recognition to our employer.”

Beneath the proposition was a table with 3 columns headed: “NAME”, “JOB TITLE”, and “SIGNATURE”. The petition was dated 21 November 2024.

20) The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 16 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 48.48% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of the 16 signatories, 14 were members of the Union (42.42% of the bargaining unit) and 2 were non-members (6.06% of the bargaining unit).

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 the close of business on 13 January 2025.

Question 6

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

Accepted Answer

22) No comments were received from either of the parties.

Question 7

7. Considerations

Accepted Answer

23) 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.

24) 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)

25) 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 16 - 18 above) showed that 45.45% 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. 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)

26) 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 25 above the level of membership of the Unions is 45.45%. 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. In this case the Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 45.45% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (16 out of 33 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above). Of those who had signed the petition 14 were Union members (42.42% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 2 were non-members (6.06% of the proposed bargaining unit).

27) 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

28. For the reasons given in paragraphs 24 - 27 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Martin Kirke

Mr Paul Noon OBE

29 January 2025