Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 29 July 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1545(2026)

29 July 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

Irish Ferries (U.K.) Services 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 Irish Ferries (U.K.) Services Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “all non-management shoreside employees working at the Port of Holyhead.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Port of Holyhead.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 23 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 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 Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Robert Light and Mr Paul Morley. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Medina Mia.

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 18 June 2026, 1 July 2026 and again to 29 July 2026 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider those 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 sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 6 April 2026. The Union stated that the Employer failed to respond to the request.

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 answered “No”. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 84. The Union stated that there were 36 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 10 were members of the Union.

8)         In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “No”. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. Finally, the Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 22 April 2026. The Union said it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

4. The Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10)       The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 3 June 2026. The Employer said that it had failed to respond to the request, adding “no opportunity to respond”.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it did not receive a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist and noted that it had “no opportunity” to do so.

12)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 51. The Employer said that there were 49 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

13)       When asked whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the bargaining unit the Employer answered “No” and noted “Not received”.

14)       The Employer answered “No” when asked whether it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, and, whether had it received any other applications 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. Additional comments from the parties

15)       On 24 April 2026 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Union.

16)       On 29 April 2026, the Employer emailed the CAC and said that “We do not consider this to be a valid application for recognition in accordance with Schedule A1 because we have not received any request for recognition from the RMT. This is in breach of paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of Schedule A1 and we request the CAC to reject this application.”

17)       On 6 May 2026, the Employer submitted an incomplete Response Form where they stated within the form that “We do not consider this to be a valid application for recognition in accordance with Schedule A1 because we have not received any request for recognition from the RMT. This is in breach of paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of Schedule A1 and we request the CAC to reject this application.”

18)       On 7 May 2026, the CAC requested comments from the Union regarding the Employer’s position to which they replied on the 22 May 2026 commenting that “For Question 2, RMT rejects the claim that the employer had “not received any request for recognition from the RMT.” RMT submitted its written request for recognition under Schedule A1 on 6th April 2026. The request was sent via email to the info@irishferries.com email address. On the same date, RMT received an auto-reply stating that “We would like to acknowledge that we have received your email and this has been logged as No. 558336, and we hope to get back to you with a response within 2 working days.”

6. The membership check

19)       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 18 June 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.

20)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 22 June 2026 and from the Union on 19 June 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

21)       On the 26 June 2026, the Employer emailed the CAC notifying the Case Manager that “There has been an administrative error with the information we provided meaning that it not strictly accurate. There are two Irish Ferries entities who employ employees at Holyhead: (i) Irish Ferries (UK) Services Limited (“IF Services”) and (ii) Irish Ferries UK Limited (“IF UK”).  We attach the relevant certificate of incorporation for both companies.

We provided the evidence for both companies.  We should only have provided the information for IF Services, which is the subject of this recognition application and not for IF UK.  We attach the information solely for IF Services only (same password as before). I have also attached an updated Employer Response reflecting the corrected number of employees.”

22)       On the 10 July 2026, the Union and Employer were given the opportunity to share an updated list of the information requested for a revised membership check. The information requested from the Employer was received on 14 July 2026 and from the Union on 13 July 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

23)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 49 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 10 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 6, a membership level of 12.24%.

24)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 15 July 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 17 July 2026.

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

25)       In an email to the CAC dated 17 July 2026 the Union stated that it maintained that the Employer had not provided a complete list of employees and job titles within the proposed bargaining unit (all non-management shoreside employees at the Port of Holyhead). The Union noted that all its members were identified in the Employer’s list during the first membership check and has confirmed with those members that they fall within the proposed bargaining unit. Despite its concerns about the completeness of the Employer’s information, it accepted that the membership density exceeded the statutory threshold for acceptance of the application. The Union also emphasized that the Membership Check Report should not prejudice or limit any future discussions on the appropriate definition and scope of the bargaining unit if the application proceeds.

26)       In an email to the CAC dated 17 July 2026 the Employer requested confirmation that the Union provided evidence of membership to the CAC, noting its previous concerns that the Union’s initial recognition application was sent to an “inappropriate email address”, which it said prevented it from considering the request during the statutory response period. The Employer stated that it had no specific evidence to either confirm or dispute the membership figures in the Membership Check Report and sought assurance that the Union had provided evidence to support the membership names submitted. It also confirmed that it remained committed to constructive engagement through ACAS and reserved its position on any future stages of the statutory recognition process, including consideration of worker support across the bargaining unit as a whole.

8. Considerations

27)       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.

28)       As set out above, the Union stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer by email on 6 April 2026 whereas according to the Employer, in its response to the application, it never received a formal written request for recognition. According to Paragraph 11 of the Schedule, which applies in circumstances where an employer rejects a formal request for recognition, a union may apply to the CAC to decide (a) whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate; and (b) whether the union has the support of a majority of the workers constituting the appropriate bargaining unit. However, in order to make such an application, an employer must, before the end of the first period, either have failed to respond to the request or refused the request without indicating a willingness to negotiate. The “first period” is defined in paragraph 10(6) as being “the period of 10 working days starting with the day after that on which the employer receives the request for recognition”.

29)       Simply put, if the Employer did not “receive” the Union’s formal written request for recognition, then not only had the first period of 10-working days as defined not expired before the Union lodged its application to the CAC. The relevant statutory period had not even commenced. In circumstances such as these, the Union’s application would be premature. The Union provided a copy of an automated acknowledgment email it had received from the Employer in response to its emailed submission of the recognition request. This email acknowledgment of receipt was sent on 6 April 2026 at 10.38 AM. It stated, “We would like to acknowledge that we have received your email, and this has been logged as No. 558336, and we hope to get back to you with a response within 2 working days.” The Union’s email had been sent to a correct email address for the Employer and there was no evidence to suggest non-delivery of the email. The Employer described the email address as “inappropriate” in its comments to the Panel on 17 July 2026. However, the Employer did not indicate that the email address was incorrect. Indeed, the automated receipt message stated that Union’s email had been “received”. The Panel is satisfied that the acknowledgment message confirmed that the email was successfully delivered and, therefore, can legally be deemed to have been received by the Employer.

30)       The Panel acknowledges that in the standard situation, a request being “received” by an Employer will also be a request that is read and considered by the Employer. This would enable the Employer to engage with the statutory process, and it creates opportunities for voluntary resolution in accordance with the statutory objective. In a situation such as this, however, there is clear evidence that the email was “received” by the Employer. That is the statutory requirement. It is for the Employer as recipient to ensure that it has effective processes in place to identify and to deal with email correspondence it has received. This is not a matter within the control of the sender.

31)       The Panel having examined the evidence submitted by the Union is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Union made its formal request for recognition by email and that the request was received by the Employer notwithstanding the indication from the Employer that it had no record of receiving the request prior to the application. Having made this finding, the first period of 10-working days had expired before the Union submitted its application to the CAC dated 22 April 2026 and the Panel is accordingly satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule to recognise it for collective bargaining in respect of the proposed bargaining unit as described in paragraph 1 of this decision. The request was made in writing and identified the Union, the proposed bargaining unit and that the request was made under the Schedule. The Panel is also satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 and that the application was made in accordance with paragraph 11 in that before the end of the first period the Employer failed to respond to the request.

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

Paragraph 36(1)

33)       Under paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. Paragraph 171B states that “the required percentage” currently means 10%.

34)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 19-24 above) showed that 12.24% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (6 out of 49 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 22 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Robert Light

Mr Paul Morley

29 July 2026