Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 18 May 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1536(2026)

15 May 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

Nokia

1. Introduction

1)         Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 15 April 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Nokia (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All Nokia staff contractually based in the UK up to and including JG12.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Reading, The Hive. Bristol Aztec West, Cambridge Broers Building, and all hybrid/home-based workers at and including up to JG12”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 15 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 22 April 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. Claire Sullivan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 29 April 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 20 May 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 27 March 2026. The Union stated that the Employer had responded on 7 April and refused its request. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s response email was attached to the Union’s application. 

6)         When asked whether it had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition in respect of the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit, the Union confirmed that it had not. 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 810. The Union stated that there were 755 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 122 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 15 April 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 27 March 2026. The Employer said that it had refused this request in a letter dated 7 April 2026 to the Union by stating that it acknowledged the Union’s request for recognition but that, after consideration, it had decided not to enter into a voluntary recognition agreement. The Employer emphasised that it respects employees’ rights to choose union representation and considered that any question of recognition should instead be determined through the statutory process. The Employer added that this position did not affect its commitment to ongoing engagement with employees through existing internal channels.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 15 April 2026. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.

12)       The Employer said that the total number of workers employed was 810. The Employer said that there were 755 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer confirmed that there was no existing recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit.

13)       When asked whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership within the bargaining unit, the Employer confirmed that it did not agree.

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 whether had it received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it did consent to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. The membership 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 22 April 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

16)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 27 April 2026 and from the Union on 22 April 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 757 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 122 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 116, a membership level of 15.32%. 

18)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 27 April 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by no later than noon 30 April 2026.

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

19)       The Union in its response dated 27 April 2026 stated that it had met the 10% membership threshold within the proposed bargaining unit and trusted it would be agreed that the application could proceed to the next stage.

20)       The Employer did not respond on the membership report by the deadline imposed.

7. Considerations

21)       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.

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 criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are 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 paragraph 17 above) showed that 15.32% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (116 out of 122 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 17 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

Ms Deborah England

Ms Claire Sullivan

15 May 2026