Acceptance Decision
Updated 29 May 2026
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-rmt-amulet-churchill-security-solutions-limited-2/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1551(2026)
29 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:
RMT
and
Amulet (Churchill Security Solutions) Limited
1. Introduction
1) RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 22 April 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Amulet (Churchill Security Solutions) Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “ all non-management employees on the Chiltern Railways contract”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “all locations”. The Employer responded to the application on 28 April 2026.
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 Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Martin Kirke and Mr Steve Gillan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.
3) The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 7 May 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 4 June 2026, to allow the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider these 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 written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 6 April 2026 and that the Employer had failed to respond to this request. A copy of the Union’s email request of 6 April 2026 was enclosed with the application.
6) According to the Union, the Employer employs 1669 workers with 60 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 9 members within the proposed bargaining unit.
7) The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer and that they had a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that they copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 22 April 2026.
8) Finally, the Union said it had not made a previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and there was no existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
4. The Employer’s response
9) The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s formal request for recognition on 6 April 2026 but did not respond to this request.
10) When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form directly from the Union, the Employer stated this was 24 April 2026. When asked whether it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union prior to receiving a copy of the application form, the Employer responded: “No.” When asked if it agreed with the Union’s estimate of its membership in the bargaining unit, the Employer gave no response.
11) The Employer stated that it employed 42 workers. When asked how many workers were in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, it stated 60. In response to the question of whether there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated: “No”.
12) When asked whether, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”.
13) Finally, when asked whether it was aware of any previous application submitted by the Union under the Schedule in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer said, “Yes” and gave as brief details: “Avanti, c2c, EMR”. The Panel is satisfied that the Employer is in fact referring here to current applications the Union has made in relation to different bargaining units covering workers employed on other contracts the Employer has with other train operating companies and that the accurate response was therefore “No”. When asked if it had received any other applications for statutory recognition in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated “No”.
5. The membership check
14) 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 1 May 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
15) The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 1 May 2026 and from the Employer on 7 May 2026.
16) The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 56 workers and the list of members supplied by the Union contained 8 names. On the basis of the names common to both lists, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 8, giving a membership level of 14.29%. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 7 May 2026 and the parties’ comments were invited. No comments were received from either party by the given deadline.
6. Considerations
17) 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.
18) 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.
Paragraph 36(1)
19) Under paragraph 36(1) 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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 16 above showed that 14.29% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel therefore finds that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule.
7. Decision
20) For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair
Mr Martin Kirke
Mr Steve Gillan
29 May 2026