Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 4 April 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1453(2025)

03 April 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

Veolia ES (UK) Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 28 February 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Veolia ES (UK) Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All refuse workers employed on the Sheffield City Council Contract”.  The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Lumley Street Depot. Sheffield”.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 3 March 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC on 7 March 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 Rob Lummis and Mr Morris Stemp.  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 14 March 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 4 April 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. The Union’s application

5)         In its application the Union said that it had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 10 February 2025.  The Employer responded by letter of 14 February 2025.  The Union explained that in this letter the Employer had said that the Union was unable to make an application under Schedule A1 because the GMB was already recognised.  The Employer rejected the Union’s argument that it was entitled under Paragraph 35(2) of the Schedule to make an application relying upon the national recognition and procedural agreement that was in place between the Employer and Unite the Union.  The Union further stated that the Employer believed its national recognition agreement only applied where there was local recognition.  A copy of the Union’s letter of 10 February 2025, along with the Employer’s letter of 14 February 2025 were enclosed with the 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 previous application by Unite the Union”.  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.   The Union explained that Acas had previously been approached in an effort to resolve the matter, but Acas declined to conciliate because the GMB regional officials had refused to be involved in talks with Unite.

7)         According to the Union, there were 9543 workers employed by the Employer with 190 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit.  The Union stated that it had 61 members within the proposed bargaining unit.  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 employees, including members of the Union who were currently on strike and those who were going into the workplace to carry out their normal duties, had been asked to sign a petition and there were currently 132 signatures on the petition.

8)         The Union said that it was therefore confident that there was broad support from the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, to see its national recognition extended to include the core topics.

9)         When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that the Employer (and its associated group companies) provided services to many clients, each of which were subject to separate terms and conditions.  The proposed bargaining unit represented a discreet group of workers within the Employer’s structure.  The Union confirmed that the proposed bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Asked if there was an existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that there was a local agreement with the GMB under which the GMB was recognised for collective bargaining purposes related to local terms and conditions.   The Union explained further that there was also a national agreement between the Employer and Unite the Union.  It was this agreement upon which Unite the Union was seeking to rely in making this application.  This agreement stated that it applied in its ‘national scope’ to recognition, procedure and representation only and made clear that pay and other terms would vary between contracts.

11)       Finally, the Union said there had not been a previous application in respect of this proposed bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit and that it copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 26 February 2025.

4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s application

12)        The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s formal request for recognition on 10 February 2025.  The Employer had responded to the Union’s request by letter of 14 February 2025. 

13)       The Employer said that it received a copy of the application form directly from the Union on 28 February 2025.     The Employer confirmed that it had not agreed the proposed bargaining unit prior to having received a copy of the completed application form. Asked whether it agreed the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered “No” and it set out its objections.   The Employer explained that the application states that it relates to all refuse workers, who are employed on the Sheffield City Council contract.  The Employer maintained that there was no job role or categorisation called refuse workers.  The current agreement was between Veolia ES (UK) Limited, Veolia ES Sheffield Limited and the GMB trade union in respect of the Company’s employees employed in its Sheffield, Lumley Street collection services, carrying out Loader, Operative and Driver roles; Employees in the roles of Workshop Mechanics at the Sheffield Workshop and the MRF Operatives based at the MRF Beighton.

14)       The Employer stated that as of 3 March 2025 it employed 14544 (within the Veolia UK business unit as a whole).  The Employer did not agree with the Union’s figure as to the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, explaining that as of 3 March 2025 there were 224 based at Lumley Street, with a further 25 based at the other sites within the current collective bargaining unit.

15)       When asked to give reasons for disagreeing with the Union’s estimate of its membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “We employ and pay directly 224 employees at Lumley Street, who are in the current Collective Bargaining Unit.”  The Employer also referred to its “Headcount Report”, for Lumley Street, a copy of which was submitted with its response.

16)       When asked to give reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition, the Employer said that of the 224 employees in the bargaining unit, only 61 were members of the Union. In contrast, there were 115 employees within the bargaining unit who paid their subscriptions to the GMB via check off.   According to the Employer, the GMB believed that its total membership number was 150. The Employer said that it had no sight of the petition referenced in the Union’s application and which the Union had sought to rely to demonstrate that it had the relevant support in the bargaining unit.  The Employer explained further that the GMB had written to the Employer on 27 February 2025, stating that employees had been misled into signing the petition as they were asked whether they wanted striking employees to return to work from strike action, and not whether they supported Unite being recognised. Furthermore, the GMB had stated to Veolia that their members did not support Unite being recognised.

17)       The Employer stated that there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer explained that GMB had been the recognised trade union in relation to this bargaining unit for over 20 years and had undertaken pay bargaining on their behalf throughout this period.   There was however no written collective agreement in place which directly related to this bargaining unit.  The Employer considered that it was evident that one was in place based on the conduct of the parties throughout this time.  Veolia (under its previous name Onyx) had in place a National Agreement with GMB which expressly referenced the Sheffield contract and this bargaining unit.  This agreement was signed on 10 May 2004.  The Employer enclosed with its response, a copy of the signed agreement. 

18)       When asked whether the application was made by more than one Union and whether it wished to put forward a case that the Unions would not co-operate with each other, the Employer said that whilst it was not a case where there were competing applications and/or an application for joint recognition, it wished to provide the CAC with some background information.  Throughout the recognition dispute the GMB had repeatedly stated they would not agree to any recognition rights for Unite at Lumley street and were directly opposed to any form of joint recognition. The GMB had also made clear to Veolia that, were Veolia to recognise Unite in relation to this bargaining unit, GMB would call out their members on strike.  The Employer said that during the course of this recognition dispute, it had repeatedly sought to bring GMB and Unite together in an effort to find a solution. The two trade unions had repeatedly failed to engage with one another and, when they had, it had been counter- productive.  It was the Employer’s view that given the extent of the dispute around recognition for this bargaining unit between GMB and Unite, it could not see any realistic possibility of them working together jointly in a co-operative manner.   The Employer said that on 9 December 2024, the GMB had raised a complaint to the TUC in regards to Unite’s attempts for recognition.

19)       When asked whether, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer said that it had been in contact with Acas since April 2024 and most recently on 7 February 2025.  The parties had been in dispute regarding this issue for a significant amount of time, with strike action having been undertaken continuously by a proportion of Unite members since 20 August 2024.  The Employer further adding that Acas had been involved intermittently, but it had not directly proposed its intervention in this matter when receiving the request. The focus on involving Acas to date had been in resolving the dispute around recognition more broadly and including the GMB in any such discussions.  On 10 May 2024 Acas confirmed they would formally withdraw from the process on the basis that this was an inter-union dispute.  On 15 August 2024 Acas again confirmed that they were unable to get involved in the dispute without the GMB’s involvement. The GMB had refused to engage on this issue at the time.  Following a verbal conversation, on 7 February 2025 Acas confirmed that they would ask the GMB again to engage in an effort to support a resolution to the wider recognition dispute.

20)       Finally, when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this proposed bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer answered “No”.  

5. Additional comments from the parties

21)       On 11 March 2025 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Union and its comments were invited.  On 17 March 2025 the Union made the following submissions:

22)       The Union had noted the Employer’s comments in relation to the proposed bargaining unit, specifically that there was no job role or category called ‘refuse worker’.    The Union maintained that it was open to changing the words used in the description of the proposed bargaining unit, but it considered that the description of the workers as being ‘refuse workers’ was plainly understood.

23)       The Union said that it had noted the Employer’s reference to Acas formally withdrawing ‘on the basis that this was an inter-union dispute’.  The Union said that it respectfully rejected this characterisation of the trade dispute, which remained at its core a dispute based on the Employer’s refusal to agree to recognise Unite the Union for local collective bargaining in relation to pay.  The Union adding that, for the avoidance of doubt, it had no objection to the on-going recognition of the GMB to continue to bargain on behalf of its members.

24)       The Union said that the Employer was suggesting that there were a further 25 workers based at other sites within the current collective bargaining unit.  The Union explained that workers at other sites under the Sheffield waste contract already had terms and conditions negotiated by Unite the Union on a national basis.  The Employer had provided a copy of the national agreement between the GMB and Onyx from 2004.  The Union said that the Panel would no doubt note the similarities between that agreement and the agreement between Unite the Union and the Employer, a copy of which was provided with its application.  The Union said that it did not however dispute the recognition of the GMB for collective bargaining purposes.

25)       The Union said that it was noted that the GMB had reported to the Employer that employees had been misled into signing the petition.  The Union said that it totally rejected this assertion, stating that the preamble of the petition was very clear about the basis upon which people were being asked to sign, namely:

“We, the undersigned employees of, Veolia ES Sheffield Limited Lumley Street, Sheffield S4 7ZJ state that we have no objection to Unite the Union being formally recognised alongside GMB within our workplace. Given that a national framework exists for joint recognition, we support the principle that Unite the Union should be granted equal recognition to represent its members effectively.

By signing this petition, we are simply expressing that we do not object to Unite the Union being recognised within our workplace.”

The Union said that if required, it could provide the Panel with the completed petition.

26)         The Union said that it had noted the number of GMB members who paid their contributions by check off but submitted that distribution of membership between the two unions was not a relevant factor for the Panel when determining the admissibility of this application, nor was it relevant to the eventual decision on the application, assuming that the application was accepted.  The Union said that it believed the only relevant question relating to membership at the point of assessing the admissibility of the application, was whether it had over 10% of the proposed bargaining unit in membership.

27)         The Union, in response to the Employer’s assertion that the GMB had stated that it would not agree to it being recognised, said that it respectfully submitted that it was not up to the GMB to decide whether the Employer should recognise another union for the purpose of collective bargaining.  Furthermore, the threat of strike action by the GMB would need to be the subject of a strike ballot by the GMB.  However, if the CAC accepted this application, and conducted its own ballot of the workforce to determine a majority support, then it would seem unlikely that the GMB would secure the necessary lawful mandate for strike action.

28)         The Union rejected the assertion that the unions could not work together in a co-operative manner.  The Union said that the respective workplace representatives already worked together on issues of mutual interest outside of bargaining on pay and terms and conditions.  The Employer and the GMB had together offered a so-called ‘courtesy agreement’ in an attempt to resolve the ongoing dispute.  Under that agreement, the Unite full time officer would join the GMB representatives and their organiser.  The Union adding that “Clearly the GMB can envisage working with the Unite full time officer.”

29)         The Union said that the existing workplace representatives worked closely with each other in relation to matters of health and safety, for example.  In the Union’s view there was no reason as to why such an arrangement could not continue in relation to bargaining on pay.  The Union adding, that in any event, it respectfully submitted that such an argument should not be a barrier to the acceptance of the application, nor a decision to award recognition.

30)         Finally, the Union stated that despite GMB’s assurances that a complaint had been raised with the TUC, it remained unaware of any such complaint.

31)       The Union had also enclosed with response a blank copy of the petition that it had referred to in its application. 

6. Considerations

32)       In determining whether to accept the application, the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied.  The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision and it is satisfied that it was able to make its decision fairly on the basis of the written material supplied by the parties and that no hearing was necessary to decide the matter.

33)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule to recognise it for collective bargaining in respect of the proposed bargaining unit as described in paragraph 1 of this decision and that the application was made in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Schedule.

34)       The Panel must also consider whether it is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule.

Paragraph 35

35)       Paragraph 35(1) of the Schedule states that an application to the CAC made under paragraph 11 or 12 is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is, or unions are, recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.  The question for the Panel to determine is whether, given the circumstances of this case, paragraph 35 renders the Union’s application inadmissible. 

36)       Paragraph 35(2) then goes on to set out the circumstances under which paragraph 35(1) can be disapplied.  They are if:

(a) the union (or unions) recognised under the collective agreement and the union (or unions) making the application under paragraph 11 or 12 are the same, and

(b) the matters in respect of which the union is (or unions are) entitled to conduct collective bargaining do not include pay, hours or holidays.”

37)       Paragraph 35(1)(b) in essence provides that, if a trade union (or unions) is recognised by an employer but not for one or more of the ‘core topics’ of pay, hours or holidays, it can apply to the CAC to gain recognition in respect of the outstanding topics.  This is often referred to as “top-up”.  The Union has sought to rely on this paragraph in order to bring this application to the CAC, maintaining that its National Agreement with the Employer was sufficient to trigger the provisions of Paragraph 35(2) of the Schedule.

38)       However, in this case both the Union and the Employer are in agreement that there is already in force a collective agreement under which the GMB is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers within the bargaining unit proposed by the Union. 

39)       Accordingly, paragraph 35(1) of the Schedule engages to render the application inadmissible unless paragraph 35(2) applies. Since this application is made by a different Union, which is not party to the collective agreement referred to in paragraph 38 above, the condition set out in paragraph 35(2)(a) is not satisfied.

7. Decision

40)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not admissible by virtue of paragraph 35 of the Schedule.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Rob Lummis

Mr Morris Stemp

03 April 2025