Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 14 March 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1449(2025)

13 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

TAC Healthcare Group Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 22 January 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by TAC Healthcare Group Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Offshore Medics, working on the Repsol Resource UK Limited contract in the UK Continental Shelf.”  The application was received by the CAC on 22 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 29 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 Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Matt Smith 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 5 February 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 13 March 2025 to enable the Panel to consider the evidence before it and to reach 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 sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 17 October 2024.  The Union said that it received a response from the Employer on 18 October 2024, stating that it did not agree to the Union’s request and that it was happy to discuss it in more detail with the Union.  The Union sent a further letter to the Employer on 5 December 2024 in which it informed the Union that, “TAC Healthcare Group does not formally recognise trade unions, and this continues to be our stance.”  A copy of the Union’s request, along with the Employer’s letters of 18 October 2024 and 5 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 answered, “No”.  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 124. The Union said that there were 20 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 15 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 stated, “Growth in union membership since recognition campaign started.”  The Union further stated, “Meetings with members.”. 

8)         The Union, when asked for its reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit, stated, “All offshore medics employed on the Repsol Resource UK Limited Contract.”  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 22 January 2025.

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

10)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 17 October 2024.  The Employer responded by e-mail on 17 October 2024, informing the Union that its request had been passed to the HR department.   On 18 October 2024 the Employer sent a further e-mail to the union informing that the company did not agree with the request for voluntary recognition and that a meeting would be arranged.  A further response was sent to the Union by letter of 5 December 2024.  In this letter the Employer informed the Union that it did not formally recognise trade unions.  A copy of the Employer’s communications to the Union were enclosed with its response.

11)       The Employer said that it had not received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union.  The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit, nor did it agree the proposed bargaining unit.  It was the Employer’s view that it did not exist with its structure, nor did it reflect the changing nature of the distribution of its employees.

12)       When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer said that it was aware that this was done and that it would welcome the process.   

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 that the number claimed by the Union specifically related to one of its clients.  The Employer said that its employees may spend time supporting this client, but their terms and conditions of employment did not relate to that client. The Employer said that “employees could support any client that we have in their capacity as an offshore medic.”   The Employer did not believe that the Union’s request for the bargaining unit had been given due consideration to the nature of the business and the fact that it did not have dedicated employees supporting one client.   The Employer said that it had several clients, and its offshore medics may support any of them.  The Employer said that it was the company’s decision as to which medics supported which assets at any given point in time. For example, there was a recent change where it moved an employee supporting another employee client to support Repsol.  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 the number was not representative of its workforce, and that it did not have a specific number of employees permanently assigned to this client

15)       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 whilst it did not have direct evidence, it had not been approached by any employees “signifying either awareness or interest.”

16)       Finally, the Employer answered “N/A” 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.

5. Additional comments from the parties

17)       On 31 January 2025 the Employer’s Response was copied to the Union and its comments invited, specifically on the point that the Union had not served a copy of the application directly on the Employer contrary to paragraph 34(b) of Schedule A1.  The Union was asked to provide evidence of service, should such evidence be in the Union’s possession.

18)       By e-mail to the Case Manager dated 3 February 2025 the Union stated that it was surprised that Employer had responded that they did not receive a copy of the application.   The Union said that it was sent at the same time that the application was sent to the CAC, and provided a copy of the “read receipt”.  The Union said that it would also comment more generally on the Employer’s Response.

19)       In a further e-mail to the CAC dated 4 January 2025 the Union sated that it was happy to work with Acas in this request.  The Union stated that it had completed an almost identical recognition claim for several Unite members working for another offshore medic provider on a specific client contract last year, with the assistance of Acas; (TUR1/1404(2024).

20)       The Union stated that the bargaining unit in this case was for Offshore Medics working on the Repsol Resources UK Limited contract in the UK Continental Shelf. The Union explained that this was a separate contract that TAC Healthcare Group Ltd had, to any other contracts that they may have with other offshore clients. The Union said that it will have specific terms and conditions relating to the requirements of Repsol Resources UK Limited.

21)       The Union said that “Members inform us that their contracts dictate that the offshore assets they are on is the one they are assigned to. There is nothing to say they can move between TAC clients at TACs behest. Most members have worked on the TAC Repsol contract for a number of years (some over 20 years) without ever being asked to move to another TAC contract. One person did move, but that was at their request and with their agreement.”

22)       The Union said that its information indicated that there were 20 offshore medics employed on the TAC Repsol contract, 15 of whom were now Unite members and had joined over the last 12 months.

6. The membership and support check

23)       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.  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).  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 11 February 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

24)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 13 February 2025.   In an e-mail to the Case Manager on 14 February 2025 the Employer had asked whether if it would be possible to discuss the information “in relation to the detail we need to provide.”  By a further e-mail to the Case Manager of the same date, the Employer stated that, “My main concern is time as I will need to request permission from all individuals we think of to comply with GDPR and our privacy policy.”   On 14 February 2025 the Case Manager responded to the Employer’s e-mail of 14 February 2025, and sent, by e-mail, a link to the “CAC Personal Information Charter”.  A follow-up telephone conversation also took place on the same date, during which the Employer informed the Case Manager that the information for the check would be sent by the close of business that day, after it had received the individuals’ replies. 

25)       The Employer sent a further e-mail to the Case Manager on 17 February 2025 in which it stated:

“As a follow on from our discussion on Friday, we spoke to ACAS (June Flemming) on Friday too in light of not being able to determine the bargaining group.

We are still looking at this and we have emailed some individuals who currently work on Repsol Assets, we are still finding it challenging to identify the bargaining group.

I would like to discuss this further.

Jane has noted that John Boland, Unite is on holiday this week but the aim will be to get together the following week.”

26)       On 17 February 2025 the Senior Case Manager, on the Case Manager’s behalf, responded by e-mail to the Employer in the following terms:

“Could you please provide the information requested by Kate relating to those workers currently employed on the Respol contract by the close of business today so that a check can be undertaken.”

27)       The Employer responded by e-mail of 17 February 2025 and stated:

“We do not have anyone currently employed on the Repsol contract- hence the need for further clarity.”

28)       By e-mail of the same date, the Senior Case Manager responded:

“Could you please confirm whether or not you have any workers currently supporting the Repsol contract?”  

29)       On 19 February 2025 the Senior Case Manager wrote to the Employer requiring the information to be supplied by noon on 21 February 2025 pursuant to the CAC’s powers under paragraph 170A of the Schedule. The Employer was informed that failure to supply the information by this deadline may result in the Panel drawing an inference against the Employer.  No response was received from the Employer by the set deadline.

7. Considerations

30)       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.

31)       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)

32)       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. 

33)       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. In this case the Union, in its application, claimed a membership density of more than 50%. To assist in the Panel in the determination 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.  However, the Employer has failed to respond to the request for information by the set deadlines, nor did it respond or provide any further information to support its claim   that there were no workers within the bargaining unit.  Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the Panel is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, 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)

34)         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 reason in paragraph 15 above the Panel has decided, based on the information before it, and on the balance of probabilities, that the level of union membership is more than 50%.  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. The Union also stated that it would be happy to provide a survey showing that over 50% of the staff in the bargaining unit were in support of recognition. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided 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.

8. Decision

35)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 31 - 34 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

9. Concluding observations

36)       The statutory recognition procedure operates in accordance with tight statutory deadlines, and it is not open to an Employer unilaterally to ignore those deadlines and thus obstruct the process. In this case the consequences of failing to provide the information for the check were clearly explained in the Senior Case Manager’s letter of 17 February 2025. The Panel hopes that the Employer will henceforth consider engaging in the statutory process in a timely fashion.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Matt Smith OBE

13 March 2025