Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 1 April 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1501(2025)

1 April 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

NEU & NASUWT

and

Inspire Academy Movement Trust

1. Introduction

1)         NEU & NASUWT (the Unions) submitted an application to the CAC on 28 October 2025 that they should be recognised for collective bargaining by Inspire Academy Movement Trust (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Teaching staff (including ECTs but excluding visiting teachers) employed by Inspire Academy Movement Trust.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Seal Church of England Primary School, Zambra Way, Seal, Kent, TN15 0DJ. Maypole Primary School, Franklin Road, Dartford, DA2 7UZ. Four Elms Primary School, Bough Beech Road, Four Elms, Kent, TN8 6NE. Rusthall St Paul’s Church of England Primary School, High St, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Tunbridge Wells TN4 8RZ.” The CAC gave all parties notice of receipt of the application on 28 October 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 November 2025 which was copied to the Unions.

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 Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Mr Paul Noon OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         By a decision dated 20 November 2025 the Panel accepted the Unions’ application. Following this decision, the parties reached agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. The agreed bargaining unit was described as “Teaching staff (including ECTs and headteachers but excluding the Chief Executive Officer, Executive Headteacher and visiting teachers) employed by Inspire Academy Movement Trust.”

2. Issues

4)         As the agreed bargaining unit differs from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.

3. Union’s comments on the validity tests

5)         In an email to the Case Manager dated 17 March 2026 the Unions made the following comments on the validity tests:

(a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “No.”

(b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? “Yes.”

(c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition? “Yes, as the majority of workers in the new bargaining unit are members of NEU/NASUWT.”

(d) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? “No.”

(e) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? “No.”

4. Employer’s comments on the validity tests

6)         The Employer did not comment on the validity tests.

5. Considerations

7)         The Panel is required to decide whether the Unions’ application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and all the other evidence before it.

8)         The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45 of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(a)

9)         Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Unions constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager on 12 November 2025 showed that 71.67% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Unions. The agreed bargaining unit although different would only result in a marginal adjustment in membership density if you remove the two roles previously included in the membership check dated 12 November 2025. Further, the size of the bargaining unit remains essentially unchanged. Neither party has submitted that membership density has increased or decreased to the extent that the original membership check could no longer be relied upon. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Unions constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 45(b)

10)       Paragraph 45(b) provides that the application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Unions as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. The Panel notes that the membership check conducted by the Case Manager on 12 November 2025 showed that 71.67% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Unions and that any difference to this figure in the agreed bargaining unit was small. The Panel also notes that the Employer has not sought to put forward any arguments that the application is invalid.

11)       The Panel, at this stage, is testing the likelihood of majority support and the evidence to support the position that the Unions have established a likelihood of majority support for collective bargaining within the bargaining unit. On the basis of the evidence before it, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the level of Union membership constitutes sufficient evidence for the Panel to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Unions as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 45(b) of the Schedule.

6. Decision 

12)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 7 - 11 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid, and that the CAC is proceeding with the application.

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Mr Paul Noon OBE

1 April 2026