Acceptance Decision
Updated 28 October 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-konectbus-limited/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1600(2026)
27 October 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
Konectbus Limited
1. Introduction
1) RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 11 August 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Konectbus Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all Drivers, Fuellers and Cleaners at Clacton Depot.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Clacton Depot.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 11 August 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 17 August 2026 which it subsequently amended. An amended response was submitted to the CAC dated 27 August 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 Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Martin Kirke and Mr Andy Peart. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Lauren Hyatt.
3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 25 August 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 17 September 2026 to allow the Panel to consider comments from the Union, and again to 30 October 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 20 July 2026. The Union stated that the Employer had failed to respond to the request. A copy of the Union’s request letter was attached to the Union’s application. The Union also attached an email from the Employer advising that the request should be sent to another individual in the organisation.
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 347. The Union stated that there were 100 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 13 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 11 August 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 20 July 2026. The Employer said that it had responded to the initial letter on 20 July 2026 requesting that it be re-sent to another individual within the organisation. The Employer confirmed that the request was sent again by the Union but that the incorrect e-mail address had been used, and so it had not reached the correct email inbox.
11) The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 11 August 2026. 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.
12) The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 825. The Employer said that there were 133 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, “Unsure – We do not track this data”.
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 28 August 2026 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Union and requested comments. The Union commented that it had initially sent its request for recognition to an individual who no longer worked at the company, and upon being informed of this was supplied with another email address to use. The Union sent its request to the alternative contact but was informed that the individual it belonged to was no longer the appropriate recipient. The Union was advised to contact another individual but was not supplied with their email address. The Union sent the request to the individual using the Employer’s established email format and it stated that no bounce back or indication of non-receipt was received.
6. 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 1 October 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
17) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 9 October 2026 and from the Union on 5 October 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 indicated that there were 119 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 13 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 13, a membership level of 10.92%.
19) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 12 October 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 16 October 2026.
7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership check
20) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 13 October 2026 the Union stated that it had no comments to make.
21) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 16 October 2026 the Employer stated that they were expecting numbers in the proposed bargaining unit to fluctuate and that this may impact the 10% membership figure.
8. Considerations
22) 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.
23) 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 criterion set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule is met.
Paragraph 36
24) 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%.
25) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 16-19 above) showed that 10.92%. of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (13 out of 119 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 24 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
26) For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair
Mr Martin Kirke
Mr Andy Peart
27 October 2026