Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 10 September 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1480(2025)

10 September 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE                                       

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

RMT

and

Amulet (Churchill Security Solutions)

1. Introduction

1)         RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 8 July 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Amulet (Churchill Security Solutions) (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Safeguarding Officers employed by Amulet on the Avanti West Coast Contract”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 8 July 2025. The Employer did not submit a response.

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 Alastair Kelly and Mr Steve Gillan.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         By a decision dated 24 July 2025 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The Employer failed to comply with its duty to provide specified information direct to the Union within the timeframe set by paragraph 18A(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule). The Panel therefore proceeded under paragraph 19 of the Schedule to determine whether the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate by moving to a hearing. 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.

2. Issues

4)         The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, to decide whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. Paragraph 19B (2) states that, in making those decisions, the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, so far as they do not conflict with that need. The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “[i]n exercising functions under this Schedule in any particular case the CAC must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying other provisions of this Schedule in the case concerned.”

3. Background

5)         From the outset of the application process, the Case Manager made multiple efforts to engage with the Employer. These attempts were unsuccessful. Correspondence was duly copied to the Employer, but no response was received. In particular, the Case Manager sent the following emails to three separate contacts (Mr Gay, Ms Waller-Brown and Mrs Hutchinson) within the Employer:

24 July 2025 – Notification of acceptance of the application

7 August 2025 – Notification of the proposed bargaining unit hearing date

28 August 2025 – Correspondence regarding the exchange of submissions

6)         On 4 September 2025, just one day before the hearing, Mrs Hutchinson sent an email to the CAC requesting that the hearing be postponed. The email stated: “I write further to correspondence on the above which has recently come to the attention of our Head Office. We note that there is a hearing listed for tomorrow at 9.30am with the CAC to determine the issue of a bargaining unit in relation to the above claim. Unfortunately, we in central HR have not been made fully aware of whatever earlier correspondence relating to the statutory recognition application has been issued. As a consequence, we as the company do not feel best placed to deal with the hearing tomorrow. Indeed, if the hearing was to proceed tomorrow without our informed input it could result in an unfair outcome and or a bargaining unit that is not compatible with the matters set out in para 19B of the Sch A1 of TULRCA 1992. We therefore request a postponement of the hearing tomorrow. We apologise for having to make this application and for any inconvenience it creates”.

7)         In response to the Employer’s email, the Panel Chair confirmed that the request for a postponement of the hearing was refused. The Chair was satisfied that the Employer had been duly informed of the Union’s application and had been afforded a fair opportunity to engage with the process but had failed to do so.

4. Hearing

8)         A virtual hearing was held on 5 September 2025 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision. The Union provided written submissions prior to the hearing together with supporting documentation. The Panel would like to thank the parties for answering the questions raised during the hearing. The information they provided was very helpful.

5. Clarification of the proposed bargaining unit

9)         The Union’s application specified the proposed bargaining unit as “Safeguarding Officers employed by Amulet on the Avanti West Coast Contract”. The Union clarified at the hearing that this included Safeguarding Officer Team Leaders, who co-ordinate and supervise the work of Safeguarding Officers but also regularly step in to cover Safeguarding Officer duties as needed. The Union also confirmed that this group of workers is not covered by any existing collective agreement.

6. Summary of the Union’s submissions

10)       In its written submissions, the Union stated that, at the time of submitting its request for recognition, it understood there were 32 staff working on the contract awarded to the Employer by Avanti West Coast. It now believed there were 34, including the Team Leaders but excluding management grades.

11)       The Union explained that contracts to provide security services for train operating companies are put out to tender every few years and the Employer recently won the tender for the contract on Avanti West Coast. Some of these security contracts provide for static security guards, who tend to guard specific premises; others provide for mobile officers who operate either on-board trains or on the basis of patrolling several locations. At the hearing, the Union explained that the work of Safeguarding Officers under the Avanti West Coast contract is innovative and unique. It involves providing not only the usual duties of security officers - dealing with anti-social behaviour and threats to security of people and property - but also protecting vulnerable passengers, such as those who may be a suicide risk and young people who have run away from home.

12)       The Union clarified that the Employer had also won the tender for two other security contracts, for Keolis Amey Docklands (DLR) and Northern Trains Ltd, from a competitor, Carlisle. Because Carlisle had voluntary recognition agreements with the Union, the Employer had inherited those agreements via the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE).  

13)       The Union stated that when security contracts changed hands, this normally affected only staff at management level, not those at the level of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit, who would continue to work as before, but for the new contractor. This demonstrated that its proposed bargaining unit involved a distinct function of Avanti West Coast, contracted out to be delivered by Amulet. The employees of Amulet working on the Avanti West Coast contract were unlikely to be an integral part of Amulet’s national business, such that a wider bargaining unit could reasonably be considered viable.

7. Submissions made by the Employer

14)       The Employer made no written submissions. At the hearing itself, Employer made no submissions on the bargaining unit, did not raise any objections to the proposed bargaining unit and agreed with the Union’s description of the unit.

8. Considerations

15)       At the outset of the hearing the Panel clarified the issues with the parties. The Union confirmed its submission would be that the bargaining unit set out in its application was appropriate. The Panel reminded the parties of the legal test it would apply in deciding the appropriateness of the bargaining unit. 

16)       In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken account of the Union’s written submissions and the contributions made by the Union and the Employer during the hearing.

17)       The Panel’s first responsibility is to decide, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. That does not require the Panel to determine whether it is the most appropriate bargaining unit; only whether it is appropriate. The requirement is that the proposed bargaining unit be compatible with effective management, not that it be compatible with the most effective management. Against the background of that overall responsibility the Panel has to consider the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule, reminding itself that these matters must not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management.

18)       The Panel finds that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is compatible with effective management. The workers in the unit are a discrete group working together as a team to provide services on a particular contract. The Employer has identified no reason why it would be incompatible with effective management for this group to be the subject of a collective bargaining arrangement. The Panel notes that the Employer already operates collective bargaining arrangements with the Union covering security staff working on contracts with two other train operating companies.

19)       As part of its deliberations the Panel has considered those matters specified in paragraph19(B)(2)(b):

(a)        The views of the Employer and the Union were fully considered.

(b)       There are no current national or local bargaining arrangements that are relevant to the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

(c)        The bargaining unit proposed would not lead to the creation of small, fragmented bargaining units: it is a discrete and self-contained group of workers that includes all of the Employer’s employees who work solely on delivering this contract.

(d)       The workers in the proposed unit are all involved in delivering the safeguarding services. Those with wider management or administrative responsibilities covering other contracts are not included in the unit.

(e)        Because of the nature of the work they do, the workers in the proposed unit are based at stations in several locations (Birmingham International, Carlisle, Coventry, Crewe, Lancaster, Macclesfield, Preston, Rugby, Runcorn, Stafford, Stockport, Stoke on Trent, Warrington Bank Quay and Wigan North Western) but that is no reason why it would be incompatible with effective management for them to be included in one unit.

9. Decision

20)       The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that proposed by the Union, namely: “Safeguarding Officers employed by Amulet on the Avanti West Coast Contract”, which includes Safeguarding Team Leaders. The proposed bargaining unit is the same as the one in the Union’s application.

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr Alastair Kelly

Mr Steve Gillan

10 September 2025

10. APPENDIX

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

Craig Johnston - RMT Lead Officer for Avanti West Coast and Amulet (AWC Contract)

Bill Paterson - Manager, RMT Recruitment, Retention & Organising Department

Christine Iley - RMT Regional Assistant (Observer)

For the Employer

Kara Hutchinson - Employee Relations Manager