Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 11 December 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1502(2025)

10 December 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:

NEU & NASUWT

and

The Great Schools Trust

1. Introduction

1)         NEU & NASUWT (the Unions) submitted an application to the CAC on 29 October 2025 that they should be recognised for collective bargaining by The Great Schools Trust (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Teaching staff employed at The Great Schools Trust”. Based at KLA Liverpool, KLA Bolton, KLA Hawthorns, KLA Warrington, KLA Wavertree, King’s Leadership Phoenix Academy, King’s Lander Primary Academy, and King’s Northway Primary Academy. The CAC gave all parties notice of receipt of the application on 29 October 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 7 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Amanda Ashworth and Mr Andy Peart.  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 Unions’ 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 Unions’ application

4)         In their application the Unions said that they had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 12 September 2025.  On 22 September 2025 the Employer acknowledged the Unions’ request and said “…Accordingly, the Trust will not be entering into a voluntary recognition agreement. Should your unions wish to pursue statutory recognition, you are entitled to make an application to the Central Arbitration Committee under Schedule A1. I hope this clarifies the Trust’s position”. The Unions stated that they had requested a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, which the Trust indicated it relied upon in conjunction with the Unions. The Unions confirmed that they had neither had sight of nor provided input into this document. They further submitted that attempts had been made over several years by all recognised Trade Unions to achieve voluntary recognition, but these efforts had not been successful. A copy of the Unions’ letter of 12 September 2025 and the Employer’s reply of 22 September 2025 were enclosed with the application.

5)         According to the Unions, it was estimated that there were around 450 workers employed by the Employer with 225 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit.  When asked to state the number of members in the proposed bargaining unit the Unions said, “NEU Membership in the bargaining unit - 125 & NASUWT Membership in the bargaining unit – 43 Total – 168”.

6)         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 Unions said “The vast majority of teaching staff across The Great Schools Trust belong to either the NEU or NASUWT. We have also conducted a petition across workplaces in which we have workplace representatives (4 of the 8 sites). Based upon teaching staff numbers from the School Workforce Survey, the proportions of teaching staff in those workplaces signing the petition are 83.3%, 82.0%, 71.4% and 60.0% (115 signatures). Even with just half of the sites this amounts to approximately 50% of the entire bargaining group across the employer alone”.

7)         When asked to give their reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Unions stated “This is in line with national recognition agreements for teaching staff in state-funded schools and recognition agreements across employers in state-funded schools. In national agreements teaching staff are covered by the School Teachers Pay & Conditions Document and Burgundy Book in contrast to school Support Staff who are covered by the Green Book and have different unions recognised. There is a well-understood distinction between the two bargaining units across the education sector”.

8)         The Unions confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. The Unions confirmed that they had current certificates of independence. The Unions stated that they copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 29 October 2025.

9)         Finally, the Unions said there had not been a previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and there was no existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

10)       The Employer stated that it had received the Unions’ formal request for recognition on 12 September 2025 and confirmed that “The unions’ Schedule A1 letter listed me, Shane Ierston, as “cc” but was emailed to the Co-Chairs of the GST board rather than to HR or the CEO. It was subsequently forwarded internally, and I replied on 22 September 2025. The unions’ later statement that no reply was received on 23 September is incorrect, our response was sent promptly. Formal correspondence from the CAC followed on 29 October 2025”.

11)       When asked what its response was, the Employer stated “On 22 September 2025, I replied on behalf of the Trustees. The Trust acknowledged receipt, confirmed that GST already complies fully with statutory trade union rights (representation, reasonable paid time off and consultation where required) and explained that we use a consultative Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for union engagement, not a recognition agreement. The Trust stated that it would not enter a voluntary recognition agreement, noting the unions could pursue statutory recognition via the CAC. The unions’ claim that recognition discussions have taken place “over some years” is inaccurate. No such request or discussion occurred before Autumn 2024, following the transfer of Northway Primary into GST. Engagement changed in tone around that time following the involvement of regional officials whose approach created anxiety among staff and departed from the professional tone previously experienced”.

12)       When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form directly from the Unions, the Employer stated this was on 29 October 2025, via the CAC^{[footnote 1]}.  The Employer confirmed that it had not agreed the bargaining unit prior to having received a copy of the completed application form. The Employer said “The unions did not engage to settle scope and relied instead on generalised petitioning across certain schools. Their correspondence referred broadly to “teaching staff” without any discussion or clarification of inclusions or exclusions (e.g. Principals, peripatetic workers, or short-term contracts)”.

13)       The Employer stated that it employed 581 workers as from 7 October 2025 and this excluded agency and Peripatetic staff. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Unions’ application and said that “We agree in principle that a teachers’ bargaining unit can be workable, but the unions’ proposed unit lacks definition and has not been tested for compatibility with effective management. We therefore reserve our position pending clarification of scope. A suitable unit, in our view, would include classroom teachers and TLR holders, excluding Principals and peripatetic workers engaged via external providers (i.e. not directly employed by GST). We consent to ACAS assistance and request a confidential CAC statistical check to determine membership and likely majority”.

14)       When asked if following receipt of the Union’s request, did the Employer propose that ACAS be requested to assist, the Employer stated, “No. At that stage, the unions escalated directly to the CAC before any scope discussion or reference to ACAS facilitation. The Trust remains open to constructive engagement via Acas at any time (see attachment 3 from Ben Singlton NEU Organiser Northwest)”.

15)       The Employer when asked if it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, the Employer said, “The application refers in general terms to “teaching staff” but provides no clear inclusions or exclusions (e.g. Principals, agency workers, short fixed-term contracts). On that basis, we cannot reliably agree the unions’ number. Once the unit is defined, we can supply the verified payroll headcount (and site breakdown) for that unit”.

16)       When asked if there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer sated, “No. There is no recognition agreement in force covering pay, hours or holidays for the proposed unit. For completeness, GST operates a consultative, non-contractual Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for union engagement. The MOU is not a recognition or collective-bargaining agreement under TULRCA and does not vary contractual terms”

17)       When asked if it disagreed with the Unions’ estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer said, “The unions’ estimate appears based on partial petitioning at some sites rather than a complete staff list. We have seen no verification of how staff were approached or how anonymity and voluntariness were maintained.”

18)       The Employer, when called upon to explain reasons of why it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition, stated “The Trust cannot confirm majority support because of the opaque and unverified manner in which the petition was conducted. We are aware that communications encouraging staff to lobby their principals continued even while this statutory process was active, creating unnecessary anxiety. Given that GST already follows all statutory frameworks, STPCD, the Burgundy Book and the Green Book, we see no clear driver for collective bargaining”.

19)       The Employer was asked if it was aware of any previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “None. No previous applications have been received under Schedule A1. If the unions contend otherwise, we would be grateful for further information so we can verify”.

20)       When questioned, if the application was made by more than one Union and if it wished to put forward a case that the Unions would not co-operate with each other, the Employer stated “We make no such case at this time, though it is noted that coordination of communications between the two unions has been inconsistent. If recognition is determined, we’re content for ACAS to assist and for the unions to nominate a single lead contact to present any claim”.

21)       Finally, when asked if it was aware of any previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, stated, “None. No previous applications have been received under Schedule A1. If the unions contend otherwise, we would be grateful for further information so we can verify”.

5. The membership and support check

22)       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 Unions (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether 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 (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 Unions would supply to the Case Manager a list of their paid up members within that unit including their full names and dates of birth and a copy of a petition in support of recognition.  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 24 November 2025 from the Case Manager to all parties.  The information from the Employer was received by the CAC on 25 November 2025, and from the Unions on 25 and 26 November 2025. 

23)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 285 workers and the list of members supplied by the Unions contained 174 names.

24)       The Unions also provided a petition, which was headed with the NEU’s logo, and contained 125 names/signatures.  The petition consisted of 12 A4 sheets with 5 headings requesting: “Name”, “School”, “Role”, “Phone Number” and “Email”. Two of the names on the petition had been crossed out and so these were excluded from the checks, leaving only 123 names for the check.  The proposition of the petition read as follows:

“Joint Union Petition

GST-Recognise Staff Unions!

We the undersigned are teaching staff expressing support for the NEU and NASUWT unions to be recognised for collective bargaining purposes at the Great Schools Trust”.

25)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 169, a membership level of 59.30%.  The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 123 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the number of names/signatures not appearing on Employer’s list were 4. Leaving 119 signatures which represented 41.75% of the proposed bargaining unit. From the petition 95 signatories were members of the Unions and 24, that is 8.42% of the petition signatories, were non-members.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 2 December 2025 and the parties’ comments invited. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

26)       In an email dated 2 December 2025 the Unions stated that “We would like to question the employer’s numbers for the bargaining group. As mentioned in previous communications, we had a good idea of the numbers for the bargaining unit from the employer’s previous submission to the School Workforce Survey (published just before summer – the raw download is too large (albeit accessible online if you want to access it) to attach but I’ve attached the relevant data). This indicated that 223 would be in the bargaining group across the employer, so we are very surprised to see 285 as the listed number of employees within the bargaining group – for context this is the sort of increase you’d expect with the inclusion of an extra very large secondary school (e.g. of the existing GST schools the largest reported number of “all teachers” by the trust in any one workplace is King’s Bolton with 50). There are a few ways that this number could have plausibly grown in the past few months. General fluctuation in recruitment, growth of schools within the trust or schools not being reported in the school workforce survey but none would account for such a large increase. I’ll take each of these in turn.

1)         General Fluctuation - This could have happened but I’m sure everyone will agree that in the context of well-documented pressures on school budgets, this will be at best very small. It may have even reduced in some schools.

2)         Growth of specific schools - Similar to 1) – we’d expect any increase to be minimal.

3)         Schools not included - The only school listed on the GST website that doesn’t appear in the School Workforce Survey is King’s Wavertree. We know this has only opened this year with a single year cohort so again the number of teachers present will be relatively small at this point. Certainly, the idea that it would be roughly equivalent to the size of a very large high school is simply not possible. We don’t believe this to be the case, but in the event that another school has very recently joined the trust that we are not aware of then our membership numbers will almost certainly be higher than what we have provided to date.

We believe it is therefore very likely that at least a large portion of the difference between the 223 in the school workforce survey and the 285 in the employer’s submission is accounted for by error and that some job roles included by the employer would not fall into the bargaining unit. However, even with these numbers, we believe this demonstrates strong union membership with around 60% union density and the petition demonstrating strong support in all of the workplaces that were petitioned, plus some further support even amongst non-union members”.

27)       In an email dated 2 December 2025 the Employer said “In relation to paragraph 36(1)(a), we note the finding and recognise that union membership in the proposed bargaining unit clearly exceeds the 10% threshold. In relation to paragraph 36(1)(b), the report records that workers who are both union members and petition signatories represent 33.3% of the unit. We also note that the verified membership density is materially lower than the high percentage originally asserted in the unions’ application, and that a significant proportion of workers neither appear on the unions’ membership lists nor signed the petition, despite active campaigning by the unions during this process. The Trust maintained a neutral stance with staff during the membership and petition period, as rights to representation and national terms are already in place at the trust. We accept that the statutory membership thresholds in paragraph 36 are met on the basis of the report, while noting that actual engagement and active support appear more modest than the picture originally presented. We will continue to cooperate fully with any further directions the Panel may give”.

7. Considerations

28)       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.

29)       The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 and that it was made in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Schedule.  The remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

30)       In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule the Panel must determine whether members of the Unions constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Unions’ proposed bargaining unit.  In this case the check of membership established that there were 169 members in a 285-worker bargaining unit giving a combined membership density of 59.30%. 

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

31)       The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether a majority of the workers constituting 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. The Case Manager’s check of the Unions’ petition against the list of 285 workers provided by the Employer indicated that 119 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 41.75%. The petition was signed by 24 non-members amounting to 8.42% of the total. The wording on the petition is set out in paragraph 24 above.  The Panel believes the proposition to be clear and unambiguous.  The call for the Employer to be formally recognised for collective bargaining purposes for the NASUWT and NEU would leave the signatory in no doubt what they were being asked to support.

32)       Given that 59.30% of the bargaining unit are members of the Unions and that more than 40% of the workers signed the Unions’ petition in support of recognition, the Panel is satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Unions.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Ms Amanda Ashworth

Mr Andy Peart

10 December 2025

---

1. On 8 December 2025, the Union emailed the CAC confirming that it had sent a copy of its application to the Employer on 29 October 2025 at 15:31. ↩