Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 12 May 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1463(2025)

12 May 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:

Prospect

and

AC Archaeology Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 7 April 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by AC Archaeology Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All employees on AC Archaeology Ltd, except Directors and/or owners.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Units 3 and 4, Halthaies Workshops, Bradninch, Exeter, Devon, EX5 4LQ and Manor Farm Stables, Chicklade Hindon, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP3 5SU.” The application was received by the CAC on 7 April 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 8 April 2025.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 14 April 2025 which was received on 17 April 2025 and was copied to the Union.

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 Sean McIlveen and Mr Brian Hooper. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 23 April 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 30 May 2025 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

4)         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

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 20 January 2025. The Union went on to say “the union and employer have had previous interactions beginning in August 2023 up to most recently at the beginning of March 2025. Since the issuing of the Schedule A1 letter the employer has agreed to meet and discuss a voluntary agreement, and a draft agreement has been provided to them. However, the meetings have been cancelled by the employer and attempts to reschedule have not been responded to.” The Union attached correspondence between the parties which dated from 30 August 2023 up to and including 5 March 2025.

6)        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, “N/A.” 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.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 42. The Union stated that there were 40 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 answered that as of 4 April 2025 the Union had 23 members. The Union said that it would provide a list of members to the CAC “on the basis that this list will not be shared with the employer.” The Union said that it had carried out a survey in July 2024 and that 25 workers had responded positively “to the question about having a recognised staff union”. The Union said that this represented over 50% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that a copy of the responses could be provided to the CAC.

8)         The Union did not provide a reason as to why it had selected the proposed bargaining unit. The Union said that the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer.

9)         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.” 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 7 April 2025.

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

10)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 20 January 2025. The Employer said that in response it had agreed to enter discussions on voluntary recognition. However, a number of external factors had meant that the planned meeting had not yet taken place.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union which was dated 7 April 2025. The Employer said that due to annual leave the application form was not reviewed by the Director of AC Archaeology Limited until 14 April 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, “if recognition was to take place, then we would propose that managers are excluded as this could potentially create a future conflict of interest, particularly relating to management discussions on staff matters.”

12)       The Employer stated that it employed 40 workers. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, and “using their means of calculation (ie exclude Director’s) it would be 38.” 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, “our total staff number is 40, therefore excluding Directors it has to be 38.”

13)       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 answered “not known as not discussed with staff. As staff numbers are less than that suggested by Prospect and therefore may not reach the 50% threshold perhaps staff should be re-balloted by CAC.”

14)       In answer to the questions if the application is made by more than one Union and you wish to put forward a case that the Unions will not co-operate with each other, please give reasons and 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 “N/A.”

15)       When asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer again answered “N/A.” The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

16)       At the end of the response document the Employer made some additional comments and said “this form does not allow for the employer to present any form of case at this stage. I hope this will be allowed during the process and the decision is not made on the basis of this form alone. We would be willing to enter into some form of collective agreement with Prospect, but we have a number of concerns, some of which have been previously raised with Prospect during discussions in 2023, while during correspondence leading up to this current formal process there are some issues relating to staff who are Prospect members which we are not able to discuss in detail because the first is part of a current grievance allegation, while the second relates to serious defamatory comments made against one of the Director’s on social media, posted on the AC archaeology Prospect members whatsapp group. We acknowledge, however, that this is not an official union platform, but it is assumed to be under the control of their proposed staff representative.”

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

17)       By way of a letter dated 25 April 2025 the Union said that it did not accept that there would be a conflict of interest if managers were included in the bargaining unit and that including the managers did not mean the bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management “because of management discussions on staff matters.” The Union explained that managers were on the same contract types as other staff, and that managers did not set “pay/terms/conditions.” The Union said that managers worked alongside the other staff and that they were not “a logically separate part of the organisation with different conditions and processes.” The Union added that there could therefore be no conflict of interest unless the managers were responsible for setting terms and conditions.^{[footnote 1]}

18)       The Union said it accepted that the number of workers in the bargaining unit would have changed recently due to an office closure but that Union membership as of 25 April 2025 was 60.5%. The Union said that it had been willing to engage in meaningful discussions with the Employer since the end of 2023, however repeated delays to requests for dialogue and cancellations had not made this possible. The Union concluded by saying “our preference is to work collaboratively with employers, each being able to express their views to reach an understanding of how we will work together. Any employees representing the union in the workplace are provided with training and their union role is clearly explained to them. Any matters of conflict should be discussed with the individual and the union’s full-tine official.”

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. 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 28 April 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

20)       The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 28 April 2025 and from the Employer on 30 April 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. Covering the following roles:

• Project Officer
• Field Archaeologist
• Site and Archive Supervisor
• Project Manager
• Supervisor
• Reports and Publication Officer
• Senior Finds and Archive Officer
• Finds Assistant
• Admin and Environmental Officer
• Research and Archives Supervisor
• Fieldwork and H& S Manager
• Graphics Officer
• Historic Environment Assessment Manager
• Finds and Environmental Supervisor
• Site Supervisor
• Finds and Archives Manager
• Graphics Associate
• Archaeological Supervisor
• Senior Graphics Officer
• Historic Buildings Officer
• Reports Officer
• Graphics Supervisor

The list of members supplied by the Union contained 21 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 21, a membership level of 55.26%.

22)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 30 April 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 6 May 2025.

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

23)       By way of an e mail dated 6 May 2025 the Employer said “I have no comments to make on staff and membership numbers. I do, however, question the relevance of the ‘Union Recognition Survey’ which is very much lacking in any detail as to why the respondents are in favour of having a recognised union at AC archaeology and what the benefits would be. It is very much a stand-alone and leading question without any context. In addition, as the survey was undertaken in August 2024 the current list of staff is very different to what it was at that time.”

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

24)       By way of an e mail dated 2 May 2025 the Union said “this is to confirm that I am content with the results of the membership check which confirms that all of the union members we have at AC Archaeology Limited are part of the bargaining unit for which we are seeking recognition. In terms of the Union Recognition Survey, if you require further information about those responding to the survey to undertake a check against the staff list. We would need to bear in mind that the survey was undertaken in August 2024 and it’s possible some of the participants are no longer employed there.”

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. 

28)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 19 to 22 above) showed that 55.26% 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. The Panel considers that, 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.  Given the level of membership, it was not necessary to consider the survey, however the Panel would comment that the survey was conducted some time ago.

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

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Sean McIlveen

Mr Brian Hooper

12 May 2025

---

1. The Union made reference to the case of GMB & The Noble Collection UK Limited TUR1/1284(2022). ↩