Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 5 January 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1512(2025)

5 January 2026

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:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

and

Politico

1. Introduction

1)         National Union of Journalists (NUJ) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 17 November 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Politico (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All editorial staff with a UK contract, ultimately reporting to the Editor in Chief and work at St Vincent House 30 Orange Street, London WC2H 7HH. For avoidance of doubt, our proposed bargaining unit excludes UK Policy Editor, UK Deputy Editor, Executive Editor, Head of Audio, Senior Executive Editor, Managing Editor, Europe and Senior Finance Editor. The remaining editorial staff, which we believe to be made up of 34 roles, form our proposed bargaining unit.”

2)         The location of the bargaining unit was given as St Vincent House 30 Orange Street, London WC2H 7HH United Kingdom. The application was received by the CAC on 17 November 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 18 November 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 24 November 2025 which was copied to the Union.

3)         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 Andrew James, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mrs Susan Jordan and Mr Nicholas Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

4)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 1 December 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 12 January 2026 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said comments before arriving at a decision.  

2. Issues

5)         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. Summary of the Union’s application

6)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 20 May 2025 and discussions for voluntary recognition followed. The Union went on to say “after months of correspondence and a number of meetings, on 16 October 2025 it was mutually agreed to move to a statutory process as we were unable to agree on an appropriate bargaining unit. The union proposed a compromise position on the Bargaining Unit as part of the discussions, contingent on the employer expanding the core topics for annual bargaining but the employer was not willing to accept the compromise.” The Union attached a copy of the request letter dated 20 May 2025 and the subsequent correspondence between the parties dating from 21 May 2025 up to and including 16 June 2025.

7)        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.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did not propose that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

8)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 65 The Union stated that there were 34 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer did not agree with this figure. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the Union said that it considered this information to be confidential and had therefore not included it on the form but would be happy to do so separately and in confidence. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union again said that it considered this information to be confidential and had therefore not included it on the form but would be happy to do so separately and in confidence.

9)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because it was a “readily identifiable bargaining unit. They are a distinct team undertaking a distinct function, in a distinct location. We believe this to be fully compatible with effective management. Senior editorial roles have been excluded from the proposed bargaining unit.” The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Union answered “No.”

10)       The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 17 November 2025.

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

11)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 20 May 2025. The Employer said that it had responded confirming receipt of the request on 20 May 2025 and further on 27 May 2025 stating that it agreed with the Union’s suggestion that, “if possible, we should aim to reach a voluntary agreement” and suggested an initial meeting between the parties to establish and agree on a framework and timetable for the ongoing discussions. The Employer confirmed that it was still open to continuing discussions with the Union for voluntary recognition when an agreement on the bargaining unit had been reached. The Employer attached a copy of the email correspondence to its response document.

12)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 17 November 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said it objected to the Union’s proposal that the bargaining unit encompass all newsroom staff, with the exception only of the UK Policy Editor, UK Deputy Editor, Executive Editor, Head of Audio, Senior Executive Editor, Managing Editor, Europe and Senior Finance Editor (the “Agreed Excluded Managers”). The Employer said that it believed that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit should not include any managerial roles. “Therefore, it should in addition to the agreed excluded managers, specifically exclude the following additional managerial roles: UK News Editor, Tech Editor, Energy Editor, Finance Editor, UK Political Editor and Transatlantic Editor, along with any other managerial roles which are created (the Disputed Managers).”

13)       The Employer said that having closely evaluated the organizational chart and the responsibilities of each of its newsroom staff, it believed that the inclusion of the “Disputed Managers” in the bargaining unit would create an unmanageable conflict of interest within the bargaining unit, which would ultimately negatively impact effective collective bargaining and management. The Employer went on to say “in particular, the proposed designation of the Disputed Managers have duties that encompass performance management of other employees and these managers also have influence on strategic business decisions, including budgetary and hiring decisions. Therefore, if the Disputed Managers are included in the bargaining unit, these managers would inevitably be involved in conducting pay negotiations on POLITICO’s behalf in a situation where their own remuneration would be affected by the outcome. This would naturally create a conflict of interest.”

14)       The Employer said that it believed that the inclusion of the Disputed Managers in the bargaining unit would create an undesirable division within the management tier itself, between “these managers and excluded upper management (i.e., the Agreed Excluded Managers), where there are often shared managerial responsibilities within this tier.” The Employer added that it was a global organization, and “significant parts of its workforce in other jurisdictions are unionized. In our other locations where the Editorial team is unionized, the relevant bargaining unit(s) exclude managers. If the bargaining units are not consistent amongst jurisdictions, this will create a conflict of interest and affect effective management, particularly where remuneration is generally streamlined across jurisdictions.”

15)       The Employer stated that it had 63 workers employed by the UK branch. The Employer said that it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application but did not agree the bargaining unit. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered, “we do not have any basis to agree or disagree with the estimate of membership.”

16)       When asked 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 said “we do not have any basis to know whether a majority of workers in the bargaining unit will support recognition.”

17)       In answer to the question whether 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 answered, “I am not aware of any previous applications for statutory recognition.” When asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered, “we have not received any other applications.” The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Summary of the Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the application

18)       In an email dated 2 December 2025 the Union said that it maintained its belief that the proposed bargaining unit was the most appropriate for collective bargaining purposes and that it was compatible with effective management. The Union went on to say, “despite the best efforts of both parties, we were not able to reach agreement on the Bargaining Unit, which we hope will be resolved by the CAC as part of the recognition process.”

6. The membership and support check

19)       To assist in 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 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. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 2 December 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

20)       The information requested was received from the Union and the Employer on 5 December 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 indicated that there were 38 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 27 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 27 a membership level of 71.05%.

22)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 8 December 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 12 December 2025.

7. Summary of the Employer’s comments following the membership and support check

23)       The Employer said that it did not have any specific comments on the report except to confirm that it had shared the name, title and date of birth of everyone in the UK that was not explicitly excluded based on the titles in the Union’s application. The Employer went on to say, “our position remains that all supervisors and administrative staff should be excluded.”

8. Summary of the Union’s comments following the membership and support check

24)       The Union did not respond with any comments.

9. Considerations

25)       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 considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

26)       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 12. Furthermore, 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 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

27)       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 proposed bargaining unit.  References to the bargaining unit are to the bargaining unit proposed by the Union.  This is the unit against which the admissibility and validity tests are applied.  In their respective responses detailed above the parties have provided a lot of detail on the arguments surrounding the proposed bargaining unit. Whether or not the bargaining unit is appropriate will only be decided if the application is accepted by the CAC.

28)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 19 to 22 above) showed that 71.05% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 20 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

29)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 28 above the Panel has 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) 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

31)    On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, 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.

10. Decision

32)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 25-31 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mrs Susan Jordan

Mr Nicholas Childs

5 January 2026