Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 11 February 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1498(2025)

11 February 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

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 (PFT) (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 the same day. 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)          By a decision dated 11 November 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. As no agreement was reached, the parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. A hearing was held via Zoom on 14 January 2026. In a decision dated 26 January 2026 the Panel said that the appropriate bargaining unit as clarified by the parties during negotiations and at the hearing was: “Media Operators and Senior Media Operators or any equivalent position who are contractually based at PFT Leeds.” The panel said that this did not include Team Leaders, Operations Manager and Head of UK Operations. The panel explained that clarification during the application process had not materially altered the bargaining unit that the union was attempting to define.

4)         The Schedule provides that where the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2), unless any of three qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found there is a majority of union members in the bargaining unit if any of these conditions is fulfilled. The qualifying conditions are set out in paragraph 22(4). They are:

a) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;

b) a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit inform the CAC that they do not want the unions to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;

c) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the unions to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.

2. Unions’ submissions on the issue of majority membership

5)         On 26 January 2026 the Union was asked whether it claimed that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and therefore submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an email dated 26 January 2026, submitted that the membership check dated 22 October 2026 supported their claim that they had the majority of members in the bargaining unit and that they had 13 union members in a bargaining unit consisting of 24 workers^{[footnote 1]}, and therefore recognition should be granted without a ballot.

3. Employer’s submissions on the issue of majority membership

6)         On 27 January 2026 the Union’s email was copied to the Employer and its submissions were invited on the Union’s claim to majority membership and on the paragraph 22 qualifying conditions as set out above.

7)         In an email dated 2 February 2026 the Employer said, “this is not a scenario where automatic recognition of the union should proceed.” The Employer went on to say “following the news of the bargaining unit being confirmed, we held an open forum with all of those within the unit.   We cannot comment directly on union numbers within the deemed bargaining unit as these have not yet been made available to us, however we have been told by a number of employees who are within the bargaining unit that they do not wish to be part of the union and do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. Furthermore, we have received comments from our team, who we believe to be both members and non-members, that they do not fully understand what union recognition means for them and how the union would interact with them. We do not believe that the entire unit or membership is fully informed on the impact of recognition for them and therefore recognition without a vote based on membership numbers alone may not reflect the collective opinion of the group. We believe that this noted and repeated concern should be considered as part of our desire to maintain good industrial relations overall.”

8)         The Employer said that despite being unaware of the specific number of union members in the bargaining unit it believed that the union only had a “fractional majority in terms of its membership” within the bargaining unit. The Employer said that this meant that only a few members would have to vote against collective bargaining and the union would not be recognised. The Employer went on to say “we believe that signals enough people within the bargaining unit either do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf or are unsure of what this means for them practically.  In our view, given the divide within the team we are concerned that, if the union were recognised without a vote, we believe there would likely be friction within the team, potentially damaging workplace relations.”

9)         The Employer concluded by asking the CAC to consider the impact of recognition on such a small team when the team was divided in how they wished to negotiate with the company moving forward. “The impact on the culture and especially on relations could be disruptive and would therefore warrant a secret ballot from those within the bargaining unit to allow free and informed choice.”

4. Union’s comments on the Employer’s submissions

10)       The Employer’s submissions were copied to the Union for comment. In an email dated 5 February 2026 the Union said “as the bargaining unit has now been determined, given the concerns raised with the CAC by James Mamillian, we have asked staff in the bargaining unit if they wish Prospect to represent them. I attach in confidence emails from staff in the bargaining unit expressing their continued support for the union and recognition. These have been collated in a short period from 2/2/26 to 4/2/26 whilst a number of staff were working a 24/7 shift pattern, and we believe that the level of support for recognition would increase in a ballot.” For the purposes of this decision the Case Manager has had sight of 14 emails from workers within the bargaining unit. It is not clear how many of these from Union members and how many are from non-union members. The emails are brief, however all the emails expressed interest and support for the union (in response to the expressed concerns by the Employer about lack of interest in the union from the proposed bargaining unit), that they want to be represented by the Union or that they want the union to negotiate on their behalf. None of the emails used the word recognition.

11)       The Union went on to say that it would be “interested to understand the level of evidence that James MacMillian has provided to the CAC regarding the noted and repeated concerns that he cites. Our reps Ryan Watts and Jamie Ventress attended the ‘Open Forum’ meeting described by James Macmillan. They report that this was a ‘Town Hall’ meeting held on the 30 January with staff invited by email. Their account is that it was a meeting that lasted just over half an hour, not attended by all staff, which focused on a presentation by Samumya Dwivedi on a new branch of the global PFT business concerned with generative AI, with the item of the bargaining unit and union recognition only raised by James MacMillian at the end of the meeting. Ryan Watts reports that James MacMillian asked for any questions on the topic, and when none were forthcoming James stated that staff could contact him directly, to which Ryan indicated to colleagues that staff could also contact him or Jamie if they wished to discuss the union, and that was the end of the discussion. While we acknowledge that staff may not raise concerns about recognition in writing directly with the union, we are unconvinced that staff have expressed the level of concerns claimed by James or as he suggests that they are divided in their attitude to recognition.”

12)       The Union said “in his email of the 2/2/26 James highlights his concern about the impact on workplace culture and staff relations. I believe staff will interpret James MacMillian’s email as an attempt to unnecessarily elongate and frustrate a process when they feel that their desire for their right to be represented in collective bargaining has been clearly expressed for many months. We believe the awarding of union recognition would in fact have a positive impact on staff morale. We hope the panel will agree that there is clear support from the majority of staff in the bargaining unit for union recognition, that the necessary criteria have been met and that recognition can now be awarded.”

5. Considerations

13)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union has majority membership in the bargaining unit. The Union has 13 members in a bargaining unit comprising of 24 workers this equates to 54.16% of the bargaining unit. In circumstances where the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union, the Schedule requires the Panel to declare the Union recognised unless it is satisfied that one or more of the qualifying conditions are met. Indeed, it states that the Panel ‘must’ declare the Union to be recognised unless we find that one or more of the qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 5 above are met.

14)       The Panel has given thorough consideration to each of the qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4).

Condition 22(4)(a)

15)       The Panel is not persuaded that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. In arriving at this conclusion, the Panel took into account the representations made by the Employer in paragraph 9. There is however a difference between workplace relations i.e. the relations of those within the team and the industrial relationship between the Union and the Employer. The Employer has not provided any evidence to show how industrial relations would be impacted were a ballot not to take place. Instead, the Employer has said that its preference was that those in the bargaining unit should be able to vote on the issue of recognition so that the Employer could be sure that this was what the workers wanted and that the Employer would respect the outcome of any ballot.

Condition 22(4)(b)

16)       The Panel is not satisfied that this condition has been met. According to the Employer workers had informed them that they did not want the Union to be recognised. The Employer did not submit any correspondence from workers supporting this statement. The Union however submitted 14 emails from workers within the bargaining unit that cast doubt on the Employer’s statement and instead showed support for the Union. A significant number of union members within the bargaining unit have not informed the CAC that they do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.   

Condition 22(4)(c)

17)       No membership evidence as defined in paragraph 22(5) had been produced that could lead the panel to conclude there were doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit wanted the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel is satisfied that this condition is not met.

6. Decision

18)       The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule are met. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “Media Operators and Senior Media Operators or any equivalent position who are contractually based at PFT Leeds.”

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Sean Starbuck

11 February 2026

---

1. The check undertaken was based on 26 workers in the bargaining unit. It is now confirmed that the number of workers is 24. ↩