Decision

Validity Decision

Updated 16 July 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1536(2026)

16 July 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING

AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT

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)         By its written decision dated 15 May 2026, the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Following that decision, the parties entered into negotiations in an effort to agree the scope of the appropriate bargaining unit. Those negotiations resulted in agreement on a revised bargaining unit comprising: “All permanent Nokia UK Limited staff contractually based in the UK, excluding Grade 12 Department Level 1, 2 & 3, Grade 11 Department Level 1 & 2, All legal Counsel, Country Management Team, and All HR roles”.

2. Issues

4)         As the bargaining unit agreed by the parties differed from that proposed by the Union, paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) requires the Panel to decide whether the Union application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 the Schedule. The matters that the Panel must consider are: -

• is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit?
• is there at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of union membership within the new bargaining unit?
• is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?
• has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?

5)         In a letter dated 19 June 2026 the Panel invited the parties to make submissions on these matters for consideration by the Panel.

6)         In an email dated 19 June 2026 the Union advised that:

• There was no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit;
• The Union had at least 10% membership within the new bargaining unit.
• That there was no competing application from another union that covered any worker in the new bargaining unit;
• There was no previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit.

7)         In a letter dated 23 June 2026 the Employer answered the questions as follows:

• There was no existing recognition agreement which covers any of the workers within the new bargaining unit.
• The Employer requested for a new membership check to be undertaken in relation to the new bargaining unit to confirm that the Union had the required percentage of union membership (10%) within this newly formed group. This request was made on the basis that the membership check at the admissibility stage confirmed that 15.32% membership of a wider bargaining unit which is a relatively low percentage.
• There was no competing application in relation to the new bargaining unit.
• There had not been any previous applications in relation to the new bargaining unit.

3. The membership check

8)         To assist in the determination of one of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely, whether members of the union constitute at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit (paragraph 45(1)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the agreed bargaining unit. The Union provided a list of Union members in the agreed bargaining unit, and a copy of their petition. The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 29 June 2026.  The Employer provided a list of workers in the agreed bargaining unit on 30 June 2026. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter from the Case Manager to both parties dated 25 June 2026. The Panel is satisfied that the check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

9)         The Employer’s list identified 662 workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The Union provided a membership list containing 124 names. The Case Manager’s report confirmed that 99 individuals were union members, representing a membership level of 14.95% within the bargaining unit.

10)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 3 July 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the result.

4. Summary of the parties’ comments on the membership check

11)       In an email dated 3 July 2026, the Union stated that its only comment was that, given its membership density of 15%, it was hoped the Panel would authorise the application to proceed to a recognition ballot at the earliest opportunity.

12)       In an email dated 7 July 2026 the Employer stated that it had reviewed the membership check report and noted that 25 individuals identified as union members did not appear on the bargaining unit list it had previously provided. However, as the identities of those individuals were not disclosed, the Employer was unable to verify the reasons for the discrepancy on an individual basis. The Employer confirmed that the bargaining unit list submitted to the CAC was accurate, complete, and up to date at the time of submission. The Employer stated that, without access to the names of the individuals concerned, it could not determine whether the discrepancy related to changes in employment status, individuals outside the agreed bargaining unit, employment by another legal entity, differences in records, or other administrative or timing-related factors. The Employer said given the confidentiality requirements of the process, it was unable to comment further and made no additional observations on the membership check report.

5. Consideration

13)       The Panel must decide whether the Union application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered the parties’ submissions and the other evidence before it. The following matters are not disputed:

• there is no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the     agreed bargaining unit;
• there is no competing application from another union; and
• there has been no previous application in respect of the agreed bargaining unit.

14)       The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the validity criterion contained in paragraphs 45(1) of the Schedule is met.

15)       Under paragraph 45(1) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. Paragraph 171B states that “the required percentage” currently means 10%.

16)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager outlined above showed that 14.95% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As previously stated, the Panel is satisfied that the 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 agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(1) of the Schedule.

6. Decision

17)       The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC must proceed with the application.

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg

Ms Deborah England

Ms. Claire Sullivan

16 July 2026