Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 11 November 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1498(2025)

11 November 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

Prime Focus Technologies UK Ltd (PFT)

1. Introduction

1)         Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 2 October 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Prime Focus Technologies UK Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all UK based PFT staff working solely on the channel 4 contract.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “PFT office at Leeds.” The application was received by the CAC on 2 October 2025, and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 October 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 9 October 2025 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Sean Starbuck. 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 16 October 2025. The acceptance period was extended to 10 November 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 10 June 2025. The Union said that it met with the Employer on 7 August 2025 to discuss the request. Based on those discussions the Union said that it submitted a draft voluntary agreement on 12 August 2025 to the Employer for consideration. The Union said that it did not receive a response back from the Employer. The Union attached copies of the letters and emails sent to the Employer.

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 provided no details. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did propose that Acas should be requested to assist the parties and the Union had agreed. The Union went on to say “the employer suggested that we could use ACAS, we agreed but suggested we meet informally to see where our discussions may get to. We produced a draft agreement for the company to consider but have had no considered response to this except for a phone call highlighting workload. We think we have been patient and pragmatic in seeking an agreement. We would be prepared to use the services of ACAS.”

7)         The Union stated that there were 27 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer agreed 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, “there are currently 13 union members in the bargaining unit, and we are happy to supply evidence of membership and that they are employed within the bargaining unit to the CAC.” When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said, “we have nearly 50% of the bargaining unit in membership and the view from members is that non-members will support the union in a ballot.”

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “the employees in the bargaining unit work solely on providing services on the Channel 4 PFT contract. They are employed by PFT for this purpose and do not undertake duties on any other contract. We have 13 members working in the bargaining unit which currently comprises of 27 staff.” The Union said that the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer. 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 did not provide any details.

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union did not state when it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer.^{[footnote 1]}

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 10 June 2025. The Employer said that it had responded to the request on 24 June 2025 and attached a copy of the email. The email stated that the Employer did not accept the application for statutory recognition in its current form. The email went on to say “however, we wish to make clear that Prime Focus Technologies UK Ltd remains open to engaging in constructive dialogue with Prospect and we are willing to enter discussions regarding recognition and representation arrangements on a voluntary basis to explore whether agreement can be reached regarding trade union recognition. We believe that a voluntary approach may offer greater flexibility and provide a constructive foundation for future engagement.”

11)       The Employer said that following the Union’s request it did propose in its email dated 24 June 2025 that “in the interests of a positive and transparent process, we would also welcome the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to support these discussions, and we are happy to make a joint approach to ACAS should you consider this helpful. Please confirm whether you are agreeable to this approach, and if so, we will be happy to make arrangements for an initial meeting, including involving an ACAS conciliator.” The Employer said that there was no contact with Acas but instead there was an exchange of emails between the parties dating from 1 July 2025 up to 17 July 2025 which the Employer attached to its response document and a meeting which was arranged through email and took place on 7 August 2025.

12)       The Employer said that it had not received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union directly and that it had instead been sent to them by the CAC and was received on 2 October 2025.^{[footnote 2]} 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 that the proposed bargaining unit was “all workers exclusively engaged on the C4 PFT contract”. It said that from this it was unable to identify the group proposed with sufficient clarity. The Employer went on to say “none of our employees are exclusively engaged on a particular contract. There is no distinct ‘unit’ created for the purposes of the C4 PFT contract, and all undertake work for different clients as required.” The Employer explained that it would require clarity on the definition of the proposed bargaining unit before it could confirm whether or not it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit.

13)       The Employer stated 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 said that it did not know the level of union membership “amongst our employees or, with very limited exceptions, the identity of any such persons who are trade union members. In addition, the proposed bargaining unit is unclear.”

14)       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, “we do not know the level of union membership amongst our employees. In addition, the proposed bargaining unit is unclear. At present, the Union, by its own admission, does not have a majority of members amongst our employees.”

15)       The Employer answered “N/A” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and when asked whether it had received any other applications under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Union’s comments on the Employer’s response document

16)       The Union in an email dated 15 October 2025 said that it understood there to be a total of 27 Media Operators, Senior Media Operators and Team Leads currently dedicated to working on the C4 contract. The Union went on to say “their role is to ensure that all content played out on Channel 4, either on live television in real time or on the C4 On Demand service is compliant with Ofcom regulations and guidance. The PFT/C4 contract specifies use of the media management product Clear. All 27 staff are trained to work on Clear, and they are the service that comes with the contract. We understand the proposed bargaining unit of 27 work on a set shift pattern on rotation, with MOs working early, late and night shifts and SMOs and Team Leads working early and late shifts. We understand C4 to be PFTs largest client in the UK, and that if the terms of the C4/PFT contract were to change that would potentially have a significant impact on the number of roles within the bargaining unit and the terms and conditions of those roles.”

17)       The Union said that it had met with the Employer in August to discuss what a voluntary recognition agreement could look like and how it could work in practice. The Union said that on 12 August 2025 it had sent the Employer a draft agreement and had not received any formal response or proposal from the Employer setting out what it considered a viable bargaining unit would be. The Union said that it currently had 13 members in the proposed bargaining unit and “that if a statutory recognition ballot was put in place we would meet the criteria to be awarded recognition.”

6. The membership and support check

18)       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 unit and a petition supplied by the Union. 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 16 October 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

19)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 22 October 2025 and from the Union on 17 October 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

20)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 26 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer listed the following roles:

• Media Operator

• Senior Media Operator

• Team Leader

21)       The list of members supplied by the Union contained 13 names. The Job Titles included were:

• Media Operator

• Senior Media Operator

• Digital Media Operator

According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 13 a membership level of 50.00%.

22)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 22 October 2025, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 3 November 2025.

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

23)       The Union said it accepted the contents of the membership report and had no comments to make at this stage. The Employer did not submit any comments on the content of the report however on 22 October 2025 in a covering email supplying the information for the check the Employer said it had provided its list of workers based on the individuals it believed the Union was referring to. The Employer went on to say “we would like to note that PFT do not accept the bargaining unit as characterised, as we have noted in our initial response. As explained, none of our employees are exclusively engaged on the Channel 4 contract and others of our employees also carry out work for Channel 4 but their job titles do not seem to be on the union’s list. Whilst we note that the admissibility of the union’s application is a matter for the CAC, it is our belief that, given the strict requirements of paragraph 34 Schedule A1, Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the application is not admissible.”

8. Considerations

24)       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. 

25)       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 ^{[footnote 3]} 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)

26)       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. 

27)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 to 22 above) showed that 50.00% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 19 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

28)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 27 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)

29)       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. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 50.00% shows 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. In the Panel’s experience, other things being equal, the percentage favouring recognition is likely to be greater than the percentage of Union membership.

9. Decision

30)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 24-29 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Sean Starbuck

11 November 2025

---

1. In an e mail to the Case Manager dated 10 October 2025 the Union said that a copy of the statutory application sent to the CAC had now been sent to James Macmillan. ↩

2. After receiving a copy of the Employer’s response document, the Union sent a copy of the statutory application directly to the Employer on 10 October 2025. ↩

3. After receiving a copy of the Employer’s response document, the Union sent a copy of the statutory application directly to the Employer on 10 October 2025. This satisfies the requirement under paragraph 34 that the Union must give notice of the application and a copy of the application and any documents supporting it to the Employer. ↩