Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 29 May 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1556(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

Arriva UK Trains 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 Arriva UK Trains Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All Controllers, Co-ordinators and Supervisors within the Arriva Road Transport Services division”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “All Locations”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 24 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 7 May 2026 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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Robert Light and Mr Paul Morley. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         The CAC 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)         The Union stated in its application that it had submitted a formal request for recognition to the Employer on 6 April 2026. The Union confirmed that the Employer failed to respond to its request.

6)         When asked whether, following receipt of its request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Union said that it had not. According to the Union, there was a total of 102 workers employed by the Employer with 35 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 13 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 there had not been 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 to the Union’s application

9)         The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s formal request for recognition on 27 April 2026 and that it had failed to respond to the Unions request. In a covering letter sent by email on 7 May 2026 and addressed to the CAC Manager, the Employer explained that the Union’s request of 6 April 2026 had not been identified at the time as it had been filtered into a junk folder and was only discovered on 27 April 2026 following a targeted search prompted by the CAC application. It added that a subsequent communication dated 22 April 2026 had been received on 23 April 2026, escalated internally, and referred to HR and Legal on 27 April 2026. The Employer stated that steps had since been taken to ensure the matter was handled appropriately and requested that future correspondence be directed to its nominated contact.

10)       When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form directly from the Union, the Employer stated this was 23 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.”

11)       When asked whether, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”. The Employer explained this was because the original request was not identified at the time as explained above in Paragraph 9.

12)       The Employer stated that it employed 102 workers. When asked how many workers were in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, it stated approximately 35. 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”.

13)       When asked whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the bargaining unit as stated in the application, the Employers said, “No”.

14)       When asked whether it was aware of any previous application for statutory recognition by this Union in respect of the same or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer responded, the Employer said as far as it was aware the only previous application made was for a voluntary agreement.

15)       Finally, when asked if it was aware of any previous application for statutory recognition made by this Union in respect of the same or a similar bargaining unit the Employer said “No”.

5. The membership check

16)       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 7 May 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

17)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 7 May 2026 and from the Employer on 12 May 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

18)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 19 workers and the list of members supplied by the Union contained 9 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 9 giving a membership level of 47.37%. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 15 May 2026 and the parties’ comments were invited.   

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

19)       In an email dated 20 May 2026 the Employer submitted comments which were not relevant at this stage.

20)       No comments were received from the Union by the imposed deadline.

7. Considerations

21)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision. 

22)       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. The remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.

Paragraph 36(1)

23)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 18 above showed that 47.37% 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)(a) of the Schedule.

8. Decision

24)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Robert Light

Mr Paul Morley

29 May 2026