Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 2 September 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1592(2026)

1 September 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:

Prospect

and

DHL Air (UK) Limited

1. Introduction

1)       Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 31 July 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by DHL Air (UK) Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Part 145 Licenced Engineers and Mechanics (A and B).” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “East Midlands Airport, London Heathrow Airport, London Stansted Airport, London Luton Airport, Belfast Airport and Edinburgh Airport.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 31 July 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 August 2026 which 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, Ms Deborah England and Ms Joanne Kaye. 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 14 August 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 1 September 2026 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider those 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. The Union’s application

5)         In its application the Union said that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 14 July 2026. The Union stated that the Employer refused the request in a letter dated 23 July 2026. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s response was attached to the Union’s application. 

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, “No.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 823. The Union stated that there were 103 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 60 were members of the Union.

8)         In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “No”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. Finally, the Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 31 July 2026. The Union said it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

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

10)       The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 14 July 2026. The Employer said it responded on 23 July 2026 refusing the request. The Employer attached a copy of its letter dated 23 July 2026 which stated:

“I acknowledge your request for voluntary union recognition but am unable to accept it at this time. I understand that you may wish to refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee, and I will await any further communication from you in that regard.”

11)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 31 July 2026.

12)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 894. The Employer said that there were 82 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13)       When asked whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the bargaining unit the Employer did not answer. The Employer said that it did not know the answer to this question.

14)       The Employer answered “No” when asked whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, and, “No” when asked whether it had received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. The membership and support check

15)       To assist in the determination of one of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether members of the union constitute at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)), 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 and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 10 August 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

16)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 10 August 2026 and from the Employer on 13 August 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

17)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 82 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 56 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 46, a membership level of 56.10%. 

18)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 13 August 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 19 August 2026.

6. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

19)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 18 August 2026 the Employer said “my only comment is regards to differences in the numbers provided on the lists by the union and ourselves. I would anticipate the discrepancy is a result of us not including Engineering Management or Engineering apprentices in the proposed bargaining unit nor anyone from the CAMO part of the Engineering Department.”

20)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 19 August 2026 the Union said “the CAC’s independent membership check confirms that union membership within that bargaining unit is 56.10%, which significantly exceeds the statutory requirement that union membership constitutes at least 10% of the workers in the relevant bargaining unit. Accordingly, Prospect is satisfied that the admissibility test under paragraph 36 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 has been met and supports the application proceeding on the basis of the bargaining unit as identified by the Employer for the purposes of this assessment.”

7. Considerations

21)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision are satisfied.  The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision. 

22)       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 criterion set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule is met.

Paragraph 36(1)

23)       Under paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. Paragraph 171B states that “the required percentage” currently means 10%. 

24)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 15-18 above) showed that 56.10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (46 out of 82 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 16 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Ms Deborah England

Ms Joanne Kaye

1 September 2026