Decision

Decision

Updated 27 October 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: DI/006(2026)

22 October 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SECTION 183 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

The Parties:

Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)

And

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)

1. Introduction

1)         Public and Commercial Services Union (“PCS) (the Union) submitted a complaint to the CAC dated 20 July 2026 pursuant to section 183 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act). The complaint related to an alleged failure by Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (“Ofgem”) (the Employer) to disclose information for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Employer submitted a response to the Union’s complaint dated 27 July 2026 which was copied to the Union. It was not in dispute that the Union was recognised for collective bargaining for the workers described in their application.

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Act, the CAC Chair established a Panel to consider the complaint. The Panel consisted of Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Paul Noon OBE and Mr David Cadger. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. The Complaint

3)         The Union stated that it had written to the Employer on 19 June 2026 requesting detailed information relevant to pay negotiations which were already underway. The Union confirmed that it had met with the Employer on 8 July 2026 to seek to resolve the matter but had not been able to do so. The Union’s request of 19 June 2026 included:

You have indicated that the level of funding for SCAs/RRAs [Skills and Capability Allowances] set out in your 12 June letter is fixed by a Cabinet Office approved business case and that alternative proposals cannot be considered. The union is seeking to negotiate changes to the overall pay package, including the balance between base pay and allowances. Without access to the relevant information underpinning the business case and relating to any directions or instructions from Cabinet Office, the union is unable to assess whether the SCA allocation is necessary, justified or capable of variation and is therefore materially impeded in collective bargaining”. The Union went on to list the information requested in eight separate bullet points which described specific documents and correspondence.

4)         Within the application the Union included a copy of the Employer’s response dated 29 June 2026 in which the Employer refused the request of 19 June 2026 and set out their reasons. Those reasons included the fact that the request was not related to the disclosure of specific documents, not to “information”; that they believed the information already disclosed to the Union was sufficient; and defences available to the Employer under sections 182 of TULRCA. The Employer did however provide further background in that letter of the basis for SCAs.

3. Overview of Employers response to the Complaint

5)         The Employer stated that the Union’s request was not for information but for disclosure of a large number of documents. The Employer did not agree that the Union was materially impeded in collective bargaining and set out the available defences under section 182. The Employer concluded that:

The request appears in fact to relate to the Unions’ view that it should have been consulted or involved in the submission of the application for additional funding. However, such applications are not a subject of collective bargaining.

4.  Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the Complaint

6)         The Union commented on the Employer’s response in a detailed letter dated 4th August to which the Employer responded on 13 August 2026, attaching two documents which had been sent to the Union on 11 August 2026. The content of those documents can be summarised as follows: -

1. A detailed rationale for the financial level of allocation towards SCAs.
2. 12-month attrition data.
3. The capability challenges that SCAs sought to address and the strategic priorities those capabilities were required for.
4. The rationale for its non-acceptance of the Union’s request to reduce the SCA funding by 50%.
5. A summary of the indicative costings of the SCA. The indicating costings set out the breakdown of the original funding allocation by areas, indicative roles and %, and was supplemented by a second indicative costing which included an increased number of areas, the indicative roles, indicative cost, costed to the £ and an overall total sum.
6. Confirmation that the eligibility criteria for SCAs was to be agreed with Trade Unions.

5. Informal meeting

7)         On 17 August 2026 the parties were informed that the usual practice of the CAC, subject to the agreement of the parties, was to hold an informal meeting to clarify the outstanding issues and to establish whether the matter could be resolved by conciliation before the matter was set down for a formal hearing. The parties were asked whether they would be prepared to attend such a meeting with the Panel Chair. The parties agreed to this, and an informal meeting took place using zoom on 22 September 2026.

8)         Following the informal meeting the Union were asked to confirm within seven days which of the eight bullet points set out in its letter of 19 June 2026, considering the discussion which had take place that the Informal hearing and the letter from the Employer of 11 August 2026. The CAC went on to list the matter for a Panel Hearing.

6. Submissions

9)         The Union sent a statement of case to the CAC on 7 October 2026 in which they revised their request following the information hearing to:

1. A final copy of the initial Business Case (in full) and any annexes, appendices, or other subsidiary documents that were submitted to and later approved by DESNZ.
2. A final copy of the revised Business Case (in full) and any annexes, appendices or other subsidiary documents that were submitted to and later approved by the Cabinet Office/HMT.
3. A full summary of the hard lines, steers, directions instructions or other limitations or control mechanisms that have been provided or put in place by DESNZ, the Cabinet Office, HMT or any other government department regarding what Ofgem can/cannot agree to in the negotiations.

10)       The CAC emailed the Union on 8 October 2026 to inform the Union that the request in point 3 was new, not contained in their original application, and would not be considered at the Hearing.

11)       The Employer sent a statement of case to the CAC on 8 October 2026.

7. The Hearing

12)       A formal hearing took place on 16 October 2026. The hearing was held virtually via Zoom. The names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. The submissions provided by both parties were exchanged, and submitted to the Panel, in advance of the hearing. The Panel confirmed at the outset of the hearing that all submitted documents had been read by them. 

8. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

13)       The Union submitted that without clear understanding on how the SCA was formulated or the parameters which governed negotiations, they could not continue to negotiate or provide a counter proposal. The Union stated that it was materially impeded by not knowing the constraints which governed the Employer’s negotiating authority. The union stated that the information contained within the documents it was seeking was information relevant to collective bargaining. In answer to questions from the Panel, the Union confirmed that the last counter offer had been made on 4 August 2026.

9. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

14)       The Employer submitted that the Union’s complaint should be dismissed because its request was principally for documents, not information, and that section182(2)(a) of the Act expressly excludes any obligation to produce documents. The Employer submitted that point 3 in the Union’s letter of 7 October 2026 was new and should not be considered by the Panel, having not being part of the original application. The Employer also submitted that point 3 was the only request which was not a “document” and its view that the inclusion of this request at a late stage reflected what it viewed as the challenge of the Union’s case being for discovery of documents.

15)       Insofar as the request could be treated as seeking information, the Employer submitted that the information subsequently identified by Union concerning the rationale for the SCA funding had been provided and supplemented by the further detail in the Employer’s letter of 11 August 2026. The Employer submitted that the Union were not materially impeded in collective bargaining and its wider request amounted to a discovery exercise rather than a request under section 181. The Employer further commented that much of the material sought comprised confidential and potentially privileged inter-governmental communications concerning ministerial decision-making, engaging the exemptions in s.182(1) of the Act and that the breadth of the request was disproportionate.

10. The Relevant Law

16.       The legislative provisions can be found in sections 181 to 184 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which the Panel has reviewed in conjunction with the Acas Code of Practice.

Section 181 of the Act provides that:

(1)        An employer who recognises an independent trade union shall, for the purposes of all stages of collective bargaining about matters, and in relation to descriptions of workers, in respect of which the union is recognised by him, disclose to representatives of the union, on request, the information required by this section.

In this section and sections 182 to 185 “representative”, in relation to a trade union, means an official or other person authorised by the union to carry on such collective bargaining.

(2)        The information to be disclosed is all information relating to the employer’s undertaking (including information relating to use of agency workers in that undertaking) which is in his possession, or that of an associated employer, and is information –

(a)        without which the trade union representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining with him, and

(b)        which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that he should disclose to them for the purposes of collective bargaining.

(3)        A request by trade union representatives for information under this section shall, if the employer so requests, be in writing or be confirmed in writing.

(4)        In determining what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, regard shall be had to the relevant provisions of any Code of Practice issued by ACAS, but not so as to exclude any other evidence of what that practice is.

(5)        Information which an employer is required by virtue of this section to disclose to trade union representatives shall, if they so request, be disclosed or confirmed in writing.

Section 182(1) sets out circumstances wherein an employer is not required to disclose information. Section 182(2) then sets out further restrictions on the employer’s duty to disclose. It provides that in performing its duty under section 181 an employer is not required -

(a)  to produce, or allow inspection of, any document (other than a document prepared for the purpose of conveying or confirming the information) or to make a copy of or extracts from any document, or

(b)  to compile or assemble any information where the compilation or assembly would involve an amount of work or expenditure out of reasonable proportion to the value of the information in the conduct of collective bargaining.

17)       The Panel reminded itself that the statutory duty is to disclose qualifying information, rather than the document in which that information is recorded. Section182(2)(a) of the Act expressly provides that an employer is not required to produce or permit inspection of, or provide copies or extracts from, any document (save for a document prepared for the purpose of conveying or confirming the information). Further, section 182 (2)(b) of the Act provides that an employer is not required to compile or assemble information where the compilation or assembly is disproportionate to the value of the information in collective bargaining.

18)       The Panel also reminded itself of the provisions of the ACAS Code of Practice, particularly paragraphs 7 and 11, to which the parties had been directed during the hearing.

11. Considerations

19)       The Panel’s decision on this complaint has been taken after a full and detailed consideration of the views of both parties as expressed in their written submissions and amplified at the hearing.

20)       The question for the Panel to address is whether, given the circumstances of this case, the Employer is under the duty set out in section 181 to disclose the information requested by the Union. If the Panel is to find in the Union’s favour and uphold its complaint, it must be satisfied that the conditions set out in section 181 are satisfied. For the Employer to be under a duty to disclose information to the Union, it has to be information without which the Union would be to a material extent impeded in carrying out collective bargaining with the Employer. If the Panel is satisfied that this is the case, it will then move on to consider the second limb under section 181(2) and whether it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that the Employer should disclose the information for the purposes of collective bargaining.

21)          The purpose of the disclosure provisions is to encourage the flow of information with the aim that it improves a Union’s knowledge of the relevant undertaking and therefore its ability to take part in the process of collective bargaining with an employer. The information concerned must have some relevance to whichever element of collective bargaining happens to be the subject of the parties’ negotiations. The test in section 181(2)(a) refers to information without which the trade union would be impeded. In other words, does the absence of this information hinder the Union’s efforts to take part in collective bargaining with the Employer.

12. Decision

22)       The Panel has concluded, after careful consideration of the material before us, that the Employer has disclosed sufficient information to enable the Union to bargain over the SCA. The Union has not demonstrated how it has been impeded at all, and certainly not to a material extent, in its ability to conduct collective bargaining over this topic. In our view, the Employer is not obliged to provide information at the level sought by the Union, i.e. detailed information regarding the business case by which the Employer obtained funding for the SCA. The Union has not therefore convinced the Panel that it requested this information for the purposes of collective bargaining.

23)       The Panel reviewed the information provided by the Employer on 11 August 2026 which clearly sets out the detailed rationale and costings for the SCA which it found to be persuasive and detailed information, designed to equip the Union with an envisaged allocation of the SCA by area and grade.

24)       The Panel did go on to consider point 3 in the letter from the Union of 7 October 2026. The Panel concluded that the information requested would not meet the test of section 181 and therefore that it did not need to review the admissibility of the revised request.

25)       The conclusion of the Panel is that the information sought by the Union is not necessary to enable negotiations and therefore the test of material impediment has not been met.

26)       Having determined that the Union has not satisfied the Panel that it would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining, we do not need to consider the second limb of section 181(2) and decide whether or not the disclosure of the information requested would have been in accordance with good industrial relations practice, or the submissions by the Employer regarding the right to receive documents, exempt information and proportionality.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Paul Noon OBE

Mr David Cadger

22 October 2026

13. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing.

For the Union:

Samantha Wood, PCS Ofgem Branch Secretary

Jonathan Anton, PCS Ofgem Branch Treasurer

Cheral Govind, PCS Ofgem Branch Representative

David Moran y Lasierra, PCS Full-Time Official

For the Employer:

Caroline Byrne, Deputy Director, HR Operations

Lesley Babb, Head of Diversity and Inclusion

Tony Sborgia, Head of HR Business Partnering

Philip Harman, Partner and Location Head, DAC Beachcroft LLP