Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 20 February 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1446(2025)

20 February 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:

URTU

and

Ellgia Recycling Limited

1. Introduction

1)         URTU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 17 January 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Ellgia Recycling Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Drivers” based at Winterton Road, Scunthorpe, DN15 0DH.  The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 17 January 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 30 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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Julia Buck and Ms Claire Sullivan.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

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.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 31 December 2024.  The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions 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. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 28 February 2025.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 27 December 2024 by email. The Employer did not respond to the Union’s request.

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 40 plus and 30 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 17 were Union members.

8)         Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered “No”.  When called upon to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated, “Colleagues joined the union to gain recognition”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because “The bargaining group all drive for the company”. The Union also confirmed that the proposed bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence, and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 17 January 2024.  

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

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had not received the Union’s written request for recognition. The Employer stated, “Nothing was received as the letter was addressed to the wrong name - Not sent by special delivery or with read receipt”.^{[footnote 1]} The Employer subsequently confirmed they had received the request.

12)       When asked to give the date that the Employer received a copy of the application form (and supporting documents, if any) from the Union. The Employer stated on 17 January 2025.

13)       The Employer confirmed it did not agree with the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer considered that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate bargaining unit and confirmed its objections to the proposed unit stating, “Drivers are already have driver representatives that meet weekly with Senior Manager and other drivers can raise their concerns through them”.

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No”.

15)       When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application the Employer answered, “No, the Company employs approx. 200 staff  78 of which are Drivers”.

16)       The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “I have no knowledge of who is in the proposed bargaining unit”’

17)       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 stated, “N/A”.

18)       Finally, the Employer stated “N/A” when asked it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit.   Asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered, “N/A”.

5. The check of membership and support

19)       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.  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 and 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 5 February 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

20)       The information requested was received by the CAC from the Union on 5 February 2025 and from the Employer on 6 February 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

21)       The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 32 workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 17 names.  According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 16, a membership level of 50.00%.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 6 February 2025 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

22)       The Employer in its response dated 12 February 2025 stated, “We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 6th February 2025 regarding the application for trade union recognition under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. We confirm that I received a copy of the application from the union on 17th January 2025. However, we note that the application did not include any details of employee names or other identifying information related to the proposed bargaining unit. Under Paragraph 34 of Schedule A1 of the Act, an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) is not valid unless the union provides the employer with a copy of the application and any supporting documents at the same time it is submitted to the CAC. Furthermore, we must receive sufficient information to allow a meaningful assessment of the proposed bargaining unit and the union’s claims regarding membership levels. We are unable to confirm employment information until we receive sufficient evidence of membership levels. Given that key details required for proper consideration were not included in the copy of the application we received, we respectfully request that the CAC confirm whether the application has been validly made. If the union has not provided the necessary supporting information, we trust that the application will not proceed until this procedural requirement has been fully met”.

23)       In its response dated 12 February 2025, the Union stated “My comments for panel are simply that the drivers based at Scunthorpe have proven via taking up membership with URTU that they wish to be represented by our Union for collective bargaining at their depot.

As a rule of thumb and our members are aware that we rarely, if ever make an application to the CAC until we reach 50% of the proposed bargaining unit as members. This is clearly the case on this occasion. Our members have clearly shown that they wish to gain formal recognition”.

7. Additional comments from the parties

24)       The Panel chair directed that the case manager cross copied the parties comments and sought further comments.

25)      The Union in an email dated 14 February 2025 stated “In response to the letter from the employer, sending a copy of our membership list to them is simply not an option due to GDPR, fears of victimisation from our members. To be part of a Trades Union is up to each individual and the right to disclose this lies solely with them. Having supplied a current up to date membership list to the CAC to cross reference against the employer list should be sufficient in ascertaining the membership level within the proposed bargaining unit. I am confident that URTU have fulfilled what is required to date”.

26)       The Employer did not submit any further comments by the deadline imposed.

8. Considerations

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 carefully considered 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 issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) 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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 21 above showed that 50.00% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed 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)

30)       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.

31)       The Panel notes from the membership check that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (50.00) are members of the Union.  In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf.  The Panel considered the representations regarding validity made by the Employer as set out at paragraph 22. 

32)       The Membership Check has been carried out by the CAC and the Panel confirms that the application was validly made and is admissible. On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

9. Decision

33)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Ms Julia Buck

Ms Claire Sullivan

20 February 2025

---

1. In an email dated 4 February 2025, the Employer confirmed that the request was sent to them. ↩