Decision
Updated 14 July 2025
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
Case Number: IC/0066 (2024)
11 July 2025
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
THE INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION OF EMPLOYEES REGULATIONS 2004
DECISION ON A COMPLAINT UNDER REGULATION 15(1)
Mr Norman Mcguire
and
DHL eCommerce UK
1. Introduction
1) Mr Norman Mcguire (Mr Mcguire), an employee of DHL eCommerce UK (the Employer), submitted a complaint to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 25 April 2024 under regulation 15(1) of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 (the Regulations). The CAC gave Mr Maguire and the Employer notice of receipt of the application on 30 April 2024. The Employer submitted its response to the CAC on 1 May 2024.
2) In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case. The Panel consisted of Mr Stuart Robertson as Panel Chair and, as Members, Mr Kieran Grimshaw and Mr Paul Morley. Mr Martin Kirke replaced Mr Grimshaw for the hearing of the complaint. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
2. The Regulations
3) By way of introduction to the issues, the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 require employers to establish arrangements for informing and consulting their employees about matters affecting the organisation by way of either a negotiated agreement or the standard provisions laid down in the Regulations, if requested by 2% of the workforce. The CAC’s responsibility is to resolve disputes about the establishment and operation of these arrangements.
4) Regulation 7 deals with employee requests to negotiate an agreement about information and consultation. Where a valid request has been made, Regulation 14 requires employers, amongst other matters, to make arrangements satisfying regulation 14(2) for the employees of the undertaking to appoint or elect negotiating representatives, in order to initiate negotiations to reach an agreement under the Regulations. Regulation 14(2) sets out the requirements for the election or appointment of the negotiating representatives. Regulation 15 provides that where an employee or representative considers that one or both of the requirements set out in regulation 14(2) have not been complied with, they may present a complaint to the CAC within 14 days of the election or appointment.
5) In this complaint under regulation 15 (1) Mr Mcguire says that the Employer did not comply with the requirements set out in regulation 14(2). It is convenient, therefore, to set out the terms of regulation 14, as far as they are relevant, at this point:
“Negotiations to reach an agreement
14.-(1) In order to initiate negotiations to reach an agreement under these Regulations the employer must as soon as reasonably practicable-
(a) make arrangements, satisfying the requirements of paragraph (2), for the employees of the undertaking to elect or appoint negotiating representatives; and thereafter
(b) inform the employees in writing of the identity of the negotiating representatives; and
(c) invite the negotiating representatives to enter into negotiations to reach a negotiated agreement.
(2) The requirements for the election or appointment of negotiating representatives under paragraph (1) (a) are that –
(a) the election or appointment of the representatives must be arranged in such a way that, following their election or appointment, all employees of the undertaking are represented by one or more representatives; and
(b) all employees of the undertaking must be entitled to take part in the election or appointment of the representatives and, where there is an election, all employees of the undertaking on the day on which the votes may be cast in the ballot, or if the votes may be cast on more than one day, on the first day of those days, must be given an entitlement to vote in the ballot.”
3. Mr Mcguire’s complaint and the Employer’s response
6) In his application to the CAC Mr Mcguire asserted that the Employer breached regulation 14(2) in the following respects:
(a) Not all the employees employed in the undertaking were “informed of dates or even informed of the ballot”, and therefore they were not informed that they could stand in the election.
(b) The Employer had not appointed an independent ballot supervisor.
(c) The Employer had not consulted with employees or their representatives before publishing the final arrangements for the ballot.
(d) The arrangements for the ballot had not been brought to the attention of employees or representatives.
(e) The Employer had not allowed candidates to canvass for votes at the sites that they were applying to represent.
(f) The ballot was not done in good faith, and no attempt was made to inform or reach out to as many employees as possible.
(g) The Employer announced the names of the elected candidates on its company SmartConnect app, which all employees had access to, but had made no attempt to use the app to publicise for candidates to put their names forward or to give any ballot information. Those candidates who had put their names forward, and who were mostly approached by HR or management to apply, were only informed of the ballot the day before it opened. The ballot then ran from 2 April 2024 to 16 April 2024, but employees at most of the 48 UK sites were not informed of any ballot taking place and were still unaware that any election or ballot of representatives had taken place. Management advised some employees that they could not vote as they were covered by union recognition.
(h) Representatives would not receive payment for carrying out the role, which did not make them independent.
7) In its response to the claim the Employer stated that five negotiating representatives were elected via a workforce ballot. The five representatives were elected to represent five constituencies within the business: North, South, Hubs, Functions and Management. All employees were covered by one of the representatives as required by regulation 14(2)(a). Following the appointment of the five negotiating representatives, the Employer concluded the process of negotiating and agreeing an Information and Consultation Agreement with them. In addition, there were 57 local elected employee representative ‘ECG Champions’ on sites, who fed into and supported the negotiating representatives. (“ECG” means Employee Consultation Group”.)
8) The Employer maintained that that all employees were entitled to take part in the election and appointment of the representatives and had the opportunity to vote in the ballot. The Employer maintained that Mr Mcguire’s allegations were, therefore, not correct. The Employer set out the ballot process in detail and the Panel will returns to this below. The Employer submitted that it believed that the ballot was conducted fairly and reasonably and in accordance with regulation 14.
4. The CAC process
9) Two other employees of the Employer, Mr James Pollock and Mr Paul Slevin, also presented complaints to the CAC under regulation 15(1) at the same time as Mr Mcguire’s, covering the same matters. Mr Pollock and Mr Slevin later withdrew their complaints and the Panel says no more about them in this decision except to confirm that it has taken no account of them or any material submitted about them. On 7 May 2024 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to Mr Mcguire and invited his comments and any supporting evidence that the requirements of regulation 14(2), had not been complied with. Mr Mcguire did not respond.
10) By letter of 10 June 2024 the Panel Chair directed that an Informal Meeting be held. The meeting took place with the Panel Chair by virtual means on 26 July 2024. Following the meeting the parties informed the CAC that they had entered into talks, with the assistance of ACAS. As no agreement could be reached despite extensions of time, on 31 March 2025 a further Informal Meeting took place with the Panel Chair for the parties to clarify the matters that remained in dispute. Following this meeting, which Mr Mcguire although invited did not attend, Mr Pollock and Mr Slevin withdrew their complaints and Mr Mcguire indicated his intention to pursue his complaint.
11) As it had not been possible for them to reach agreement, the CAC informed the parties on 2 May 2025 that the Panel would hold a hearing to determine the complaint. The parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the complaint. A hearing was held in London on 16 June 2025 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision.
12) Following receipt of submissions, and in response to a query raised by the Employer, the CAC by letter of 13 June 2025 informed the parties that, for the avoidance of doubt, the only complaint which the CAC would consider at the hearing on 16 June 2025 was that made by Mr Mcguire under regulation 15(1) in April 2024 concerning the election or appointment of negotiating representatives.
5. The hearing
13) Mr Mcguire did not attend the hearing on 16 June 2025 but was represented by Mr Jonathan Haywood, Unite the Union International Officer. The Employer was represented by Mr Philip Harman, solicitor, who was accompanied by Ms Joanna Weston (HR Project Manager) and Ms Claire Watson (Head of HR Business Partnering).
14) The Panel had to deal with a preliminary matter at the start of the hearing. The Employer had submitted with its file of documents for the hearing a number of witness statements. Before the hearing three individuals who had given witness statements contacted the CAC to ask that their statements be removed on the basis that they were not aware that they would be used as part of a legal process or that the information would be shared with third party legal representatives. Mr Mcguire asked that all of the witness statements be ignored for the same reason. The Employer disputed that the witness statements had been obtained improperly.
15) The Panel noted that there appeared to be a dispute concerning the way that the witness statements were obtained and the circumstances in which they were sought to be retracted and whether the Panel should consider them. There was no evidence before the Panel as to these matters. The Panel’s decision was that it would consider the witness statements and give them as much weight as it deemed appropriate where the witnesses were not in attendance. However, on a preliminary reading of them, it was unclear how material the contents would be. In the event, the Panel did not find the witness statements of significance in its decision.
6. Findings of fact
16) After considering the documents presented by the parties and their submissions, the Panel makes the following findings of fact. They have not been materially in dispute.
17) The Employer, DHL eCommerce UK, is a major logistics and delivery company. It has about 4,000 employees in its UK business.
18) Following the receipt in January 2024 of what is accepted to have been a valid employee request under regulation 7, the Employer followed a process for the election of representatives which it says satisfied the requirements of regulation 14:
(a) Employees across five constituencies (North, South, Hubs, Functions, Management) were invited to nominate themselves to become what were known as ECG (Employee Consultative Group) Area Representatives.
(b) A ballot was then held for the election of five representatives, one for each constituency, from those who had nominated themselves.
(c) The Employer prepared a leaflet under the name of Joanna Weston, Employee Relations and Engagement Manager, describing the process and inviting employees to nominate themselves, the wording of which was as follows:
“We have received a valid request for the establishment of Information and Consultation arrangements for DHL eCommerce UK.
We were already in the process of re focusing our current ECG, but we are now reviewing this to ensure that we are compliant with the Information and Consultation Regulations.
The existing ECG Representatives in the business will remain but they will become known as our ECG Champions, and we are introducing a new layer who will become the ECG Area Representatives.
There will be 1 ECG Area Representative per the following constituencies which cover all colleagues under DHL eCommerce UK.
-
North
-
South
-
Hubs
-
Functions
-
Management*
*The management representative must be a K grade or higher.
The ECG Area Representative role is completed alongside your existing duties, but a monthly allowance will be paid for the extra responsibility.
Criteria:
-
Must be a DHL eCommerce UK employee and have 12 months continuous service within the division (where possible)
-
Must hold a clean disciplinary record
-
May hold a supervisory role but not a K grade or above, management role (except for the ECG Management Area Representative).
-
To be flexible to travel occasionally to support in meetings / ECG activities which may not be aligned to your shift pattern.
-
To be able to build and maintain great working relationships.
-
To be passionate about the ECG and deliver a great service.
-
To be able to represent your constituency effectively.
What are some of the key responsibilities of the ECG Area Representative?
Role Overview:
-
To be a liaison between the Local ECG Champions and the ER and Engagement Manager and support escalations from the ECG Champions.
-
To collate monthly ECG documentation and gather key themes and questions for their constituencies and feed these into the ER and Engagement Manager.
-
Attend and represent their constituencies in all the ECG meetings and in quarterly H&S meetings.
-
To support escalations from ECG Champions under their constituencies.
-
To review and manage the performance of ECG Champions to ensure this is consistent and in line with performance standards.
-
To be an active user and champion of Smart Connect.
-
To organise and hold quarterly meetings with local Champions under their constituencies to canvas views and share business information.
-
To consult on behalf of colleagues under their constituency.
-
Support on comms and business initiatives and disseminate this information to their constituencies.
-
To drive engagement and wellbeing topics with Champions in their constituency.
-
To manage the recruitment and induction process for new Champions.
-
To support the upskilling of ECG Champions.
-
To demonstrate and promote our attributes; Can Do, Right First Time, Passion, and As One.
-
To review and agree the content of the new ECG Agreement – and any subsequent changes – with the Employee Relations and Engagement Manager.”
(d) Senior managers were briefed about the nomination process prior to the nomination information being sent out.
(e) Site managers were briefed over email on 1 March 2024 on the Employer’s expectations for the nomination process, and were informed that they needed to hand out the leaflets describing the process to all colleagues or send them by post or email to colleagues that were absent from the business.
(f) A copy of the leaflet was sent out by email to all colleagues with a company email address, and for those that did not, it was sent to site managers to disseminate to sites on 7 March 2024.
(g) Managers who were handing out the leaflets were required to go onto a Teams channel and confirm that they had handed out the leaflets to all colleagues at sites. All sites confirmed that they completed this activity.
(h) Colleagues could nominate themselves through a QR code which was included on the leaflet and led them to a Microsoft form. Colleagues had from 7 March 2024 to 17 March 2024 to nominate themselves to become an ECG Area Representative.
(i) A total of 42 colleagues nominated themselves. Mr Mcguire nominated himself for the ECG Area Representative position for the North constituency, but was not successful in obtaining the most votes in the ballot and was not elected.
(j) Two of the constituencies (Functions and Management) only received one nomination, and therefore there was no requirement to ballot.
(k) The North, South and Hubs constituencies received multiple nominations and, therefore, required a ballot. This ballot commenced on 3 April 2024 and closed on 16 April 2024.
(l) Posters were created which included a picture and an overview of each candidate to be placed at site. A management briefing was also produced to be read out to colleagues on every shift at site, which detailed the process and the rules for voting.
(m) Colleagues voted by scanning the QR code and voting through Microsoft Forms for their preferred candidate. Therefore, colleagues who were absent from the business could still vote from home.
(n) The announcement of the successful candidates who had received the most votes in their constituency was made on 24 April 2024.
19) These findings largely reflect the Employer’s case as set out in its response to the complaint. Mr Haywood accepted in submissions that he had no evidence that the Employer did not follow the process it described or that any employees were not aware of the process being followed.
20) There is no evidence that employees were not informed of the ballot and the arrangements for voting. Ms Weston told the Panel that some candidates were approached by HR to encourage then to put their names forward but all employees were able to nominate themselves and 42 across the business did so. The Employer did not prevent any colleagues from standing for election or from voting in the ballot irrespective of whether employees were covered by a pre-existing collective agreement or not. Mr Mcguire nominated himself to be a negotiating representative but was unsuccessful in the ballot.
21) In answer to questions from the Panel, Ms Weston acknowledged that the leaflet set out several criteria for nomination. These included requirements for employees to have 12 months’ continuous service (where possible) and a clean disciplinary record. She asserted that these reflected the need for employees to have some experience in the business to be effective representatives and to have credibility as a representative. She was unaware that any candidates had been rejected by application of the criteria.
7. Submissions for Mr Mcguire
22) Mr Haywood submitted that looking at the leaflet, the purpose of the ballot organised by the Employer was to recruit representatives for an expansion of the exiting ECG structure rather than to seek representatives under regulation 14. The existing ECG structure was to remain in place and five new roles were to be added to it. From the role overview, he submitted, the key function was to act as liaison between the ECG Champions and management and the responsibilities were the kind of thing that a negotiating body should be allowed to negotiate about rather than being predetermined by management.
23) Mr Haywood noted that there was no mention in the leaflet of negotiation or the role of a negotiating representative. Whilst he accepted there was no need to refer to regulation 14 specifically, there must be some mention of the key responsibility of negotiating. The final bullet-point referred to reviewing and agreeing a new ECG agreement, presumably something already in place. He submitted that for there to be an effective ballot, employees must know what they were being elected to do.
24) Mr Haywood submitted that regulation 14(2) required that all employees must be able to take part in the process. Here, the Employer had set criteria which excluded some employees from standing for election. This meant that employees had been deprived of the right to be represented by a properly-constituted group of negotiating representatives under regulation 14. There was nothing in regulation 14 which allowed an employer to stipulate who could be a representative or who could stand in the ballot.
25) Mr Haywood accepted that the five constituencies would cover all employees and there was no issue about the number of representatives. He made no submissions about the lack of a supervisor for the ballot, the absence of negotiations about the ballot arrangements or any denial of the right to canvass.
26) Mt Hayward submitted that the requirements of regulation 14(2) had not been met as representatives were not elected as negotiating representatives as provided for under the Regulations.
8. Submissions for the Employer
27) Mr Harman began by noting that the points now being made by Mr Haywood had not appeared in the claim form and Mr Maguire had not produced written submissions as directed by the Panel. The Panel asked Mr Harman if he was making any application in this respect but following an adjournment, Mr Harman was content to proceed. The Panel was content that the specific points now being made by Mr Haywood on Mr Maguire’s behalf fell within the general contentions set out in the application form, and Mr Harman and the Employer were not disadvantaged by the Panel dealing with them,
28) Mr Harman contended that the clear intention behind regulation 14 was to allow an employer to elect or appoint negotiating representatives in a fairly ‘light touch’ manner without the need to follow any prescriptive election process. The provisions of regulation 14(2) are in stark contrast to the very prescriptive requirements set out in schedule 2.
29) Mr Harman observed that any specific complaints by Mr Mcguire were relevant only to the extent that they amounted to an alleged failure to comply with regulation 14(2)(b). The Employer had provided all employees with an information leaflet which set out, in particular, how to nominate themselves as a candidate. This included details of the closing date for nominations. There were 42 nominations which demonstrated that the process for nominations was well understood. For those constituencies where multiple nominations had been received, the Employer had provided all employees with information as to the election process including how to vote and the timing of the ballot. The number of votes received suggested that employees were aware of the process.
30) As to whether the information provided in the leaflet was clear that the nominations and balloting process related to negotiating representatives for the purposes of regulation 14, Mr Harman maintained that it was sufficiently clear. It was correct the role was called “ECG Area Representative”. However, there was nothing in regulation 14(2) that required that the negotiating representatives be given a particular title, badge or label. The title given to the representatives had no bearing on whether following the election all employees were represented as required by regulation 14(2)(a); had no bearing on whether all employees were able to participate in the election process, as stipulated by regulation 14(2)(b); and had no bearing on whether all employees were able to vote, also within regulation 14(2)(b).
31) Mr Harman maintained that the leaflet, read in context, was clear. It explicitly referred to receiving a valid request for Information and Consultation representatives. It explicitly indicated that the existing ECG was being reviewed to be compliant with the Regulations. It set out in detail the steps it was taking to become compliant by the creation of new ECG Area Representatives; and It explicitly referred in the final bullet-point to the responsibility to review and agree the content of a new agreement, this amounting to “negotiation” within regulation 14.
32) Mr Harman said that it was incorrect that what was being done was merely an extension of existing arrangements. There was an existing framework, but the intention was to set up a brand-new agreement that would comply with the Regulations. There is nothing in the Regulations that precludes arrangements being designed to be compatible with existing structures.
33) Mr Harman noted that it was being argued that the word ‘negotiating’ was not used. However, negotiations had taken place and a brand new agreement agreed. In answer to a question from the Panel as to why the word “negotiating” did not appear in the Role Overview within the leaflet, Mr Harman explained that the Employer had wanted to use non-technical language so that people could understand and participate. There was no evidence that employees had not understood the content or purpose of the leaflet.
34) Also in response to a question from the Panel about the use of criteria about who could stand for election, specifically 12 months service or a clean disciplinary record, Mr Harman contended that an employee representing colleagues should understand the business and be able to meaningfully engage in the process. He submitted that there was noting in regulation 14(2) which precluded the employer from setting eligibility criteria for who could stand as a candidate; “take part” in regulation 14(2) meant taking part in the ballot.
35) In his closing submissions, Mr Harman said that the Employer’s position was that an election took place, representatives were appointed, and an agreement was reached, with the broad majority of the workforce entirely happy with what was in place. Mr Maguire’s allegations about the wording of the leaflet were entirely down to semantics. It was clear, in Mr Harman’s submission, that the election was for negotiating representatives, and, therefore, it was compliant with the Regulations.
9. Deliberations and conclusions
36) The starting point for the Panel is that this is a complaint under regulation 15(1). That requires the Panel to decide whether one or both of the requirements for the appointment or election of negotiating representatives set out in regulation14(2) have not been complied with. This requires careful consideration of the arrangements by the Employer against the requirements set out in regulation 14(2).
37) The Panel reminds itself, however, of the wording of regulation 14(1) (a):
“14.-(1) In order to initiate negotiations to reach an agreement under these Regulations the employer must as soon as reasonably practicable-
(a) make arrangements, satisfying the requirements of paragraph (2), for the employees of the undertaking to elect or appoint negotiating representatives…
38) Under regulation 14(1)(a), the arrangements the employer is required to make are for the employees to elect negotiating representatives. It is not for the employer to decide who the representatives should be or who the employer will allow to be a representative. It is for the employees to elect the representatives.
39) With that in mind, the Panel turns to regulation 14(2):
14(2) The requirements for the election or appointment of negotiating representatives under paragraph (1) (a) are that –
(a) the election or appointment of the representatives must be arranged in such a way that, following their election or appointment, all employees of the undertaking are represented by one or more representatives; and
(b) all employees of the undertaking must be entitled to take part in the election or appointment of the representatives and, where there is an election, all employees of the undertaking on the day on which the votes may be cast in the ballot, or if the votes may be cast on more than one day, on the first day of those days, must be given an entitlement to vote in the ballot.”
40) An employer, on receipt of a valid request, has two responsibilities in relation to the appointment or election of negotiating representatives. Regulation 14(2)(a) requires that all employees should be represented, following the process, by one or more negotiating representatives. Regulation 14(2)(b) states that all employees must be entitled to take part in the election or appointment of representatives.
41) In this case the Employer set out the role and responsibilities of what were described as the “ECG Area Representatives” in the leaflet. The role was not described as “Negotiating Representative” and the word “negotiating” does not appear anywhere in the leaflet. The Role Overview set out 14 bullet-pointed functions, only one of which (the last bullet point) even arguably included the function of a negotiating representative under regulation 14. The Panel accepts that elsewhere in the leaflet, it was stated that the Employer had received a valid request to establish information and consultation arrangements and wished to ensure that it was compliant with the Regulations. The Panel acknowledges that the Employer wished to use everyday, non-technical language to describe the role. But it is notable that the leaflet did not explain how the new arrangements were compliant with the Regulations or what part of the role and responsibilities set out in the leaflet related to the Employer’s obligations under the Regulations.
42) The overarching obligation on the Employer under regulation 14 is to facilitate the election by the Employees of negotiating representatives. But the Panel has concluded that what was being created by the arrangements set out in the leaflet was not for the workforce to elect negotiating representatives. Firstly, except arguably for the final bullet-point, the numerous responsibilities set out in the Role Overview had nothing to do with the position of a negotiating representative under regulation 14. Even if the last bullet point of the 14 was a reference to the role of negotiating representative, it was peripheral to the main purpose of creating a new level of ECG representative within the Employer’s structures. It would not be apparent to a reasonable employee in the Panel’s view that this was a ballot for negotiating representatives. Secondly, the word “negotiating” did not appear anywhere in the leaflet, and the Panel considers that by omitting the word ‘negotiating’, the Employer had failed to use the wording that was the very essence of the Regulations. The Panel does not accept Mr Harman’s contention that the wording of the last bullet-point:
“To review and agree the content of the new ECG Agreement – and any subsequent changes – with the Employee Relations and Engagement Manager”
encompassed negotiation of an Information and Consultation Agreement. “Review and agree” is not synonymous with “negotiation”, and the Employer could and should have made clear that the role encompassed negotiation of the agreement. If employees are standing for election, they must understand what they are standing for, and the leaflet. in question simply did not achieve this. The language used, far from being simple and straightforward as Mr Harman suggested, was obfuscatory. Whilst regulation 14(2) does not contain a specific requirement that the purpose of the ballot is made clear, it is inherent in regulation 14 that the purpose of the ballot must be the statutory purpose of electing negotiating representatives. Here, it was not. The Panel finds, therefore, that the Employer did not comply with the requirements of regulation 14(2) by making arrangements for the appointment of negotiating representatives which sufficiently informed the workforce who they were electing.
43) Mr Harman’s contention that there is no evidence that anyone did not understand the role, as shown by the number of candidates, misses the point. It suggests that employees understood what the role was as set out in the leaflet. It does not suggest that those applying understood they would be negotiating representatives under regulation 14; there is no evidence that anyone applied because they understood that was the specific role for which the ballot was being arranged.
44) There is a further matter, which arises under regulation 14(2)(b). Under regulation 14(2)(b), all employees of the undertaking must be entitled to take part in the election or appointment of the representatives. In the Panel’s view, the words “take part” are not confined to the entitlement to vote in the ballot. If that were the case, the regulation would have said so. They encompass also the right to stand as a candidate in the ballot. There is nothing in regulation 14 which entitles an employer to limit or prescribe who may stand for election by the employees. By imposing criteria that those who seek nomination must have 12 months’ continuous service (the words “if possible” add nothing in the Panel’s view) and have a clean disciplinary record, the Employer failed to ensure that all employees can take part in the election. It is immaterial that no one was rejected on the basis of either criterion; it may be that candidates were deterred from nominating themselves by the existence of the criteria. The Panel is less concerned by the other criteria which appear to be a “wish list” for the kind of individuals who should stand rather than exclusionary factors.
45) For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, the Panel finds that the requirements for the appointment or election of negotiating representatives set out in regulation14(2) have not been complied with. Accordingly, Mr Maguire’s complaint under regulation 15(1) is well-founded.
10. The Panel’s decision
46) Regulation 15(2) provides as follows:
(2) Where the CAC finds the complaint well-founded it shall make an order requiring the employer to arrange for the process of election or appointment of negotiating representatives referred to in regulation 14 to take place again within such a period as the order shall specify.”
47) The terms of regulation 15(2) are mandatory. Accordingly, the Panel orders the Employer to arrange for the process of election or appointment of negotiating representatives referred to in regulation 14 to be taken again. The Panel further orders that this takes place within the period of eight weeks beginning with the date on which this decision is sent to the parties. The Panel considers that this is a reasonable period for the process.
Panel
Mr Stuart Robertson - Chair of the Panel
Mr Martin Kirke
Mr Paul Morley
11 July 2025
11. Appendix
Names of those who attended the hearing:
For the Applicant:
Matt Draper - Union the Union National Officer
Jonathan Hayward - Union the Union International Officer
For the Employer
Joanna Weston - HR Project Manager
Philip Harman - Solicitor DAC Beachcroft LLP
Claire Watson - Head of HR Business Partnering