Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 22 July 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1550(2026)

22 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

M Group Transport (Rail & Aviation) 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 M Group Transport (Rail & Aviation) Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all non-management employees working on the Network Rail Wales & Western Reactive & Minor Works Contract”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “all locations.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 23 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 26 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 Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Derek Devereux and Ms Claire Sullivan. 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 29 April 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 19 May 2026 in order for the Employer’s response to be submitted, then again to 17 June 2026 to allow time for the CAC to carry out a membership check, and again to 1 July 2026 to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of the membership check. The final extension to the acceptance period was to 22 July in order for the decision to be drafted. 

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 had failed to respond to the request. A copy of the Union’s request letter was attached to the Union’s application.

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 510. The Union stated that there were 39 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 6 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 14 May 2026. However, in a covering email the Employer stated that it believed that there was an absence of a valid prior request for recognition, an inconsistency in employer identity and address, and that due to these issues accepting the application would undermine procedural fairness. The Employer did not confirm how it responded to the Union’s written request for recognition or enclose a copy of its response.

11)       The Employer stated that it had not received 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.

12)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 523. The Employer said that there were 35 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”.  

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 3 June 2026 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application and its supporting statement to the Union. The CAC also sent a letter to the Union dated 3 June 2026 asking for further comments on the Employer’s response. In particular, the Panel Chair was seeking the Union’s comments regarding the Employer’s contention that it did not receive the Union’s application.

16)       The Union sent its comments on the Employer’s response on 11 June 2026. The Union stated that it submitted the voluntary recognition request under Schedule A1 and the CAC application to the same email address. It stated due to this it believed that both emails would have been received by the Employer. It also stated that it did not believe that there was uncertainty as to the identity of the employer.

6. The membership check

17)       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 17 June 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

18)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 17 June 2026 and from the Union on 23 June 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

19)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 35 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 6 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 5, a membership level of 14.29%. 

20)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 23 June 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 26 June 2026.

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

21)       In an email to the CAC dated 24 June 2025 the Union stated that it did not wish to comment.

22)       In an email to the CAC dated 26 June 2026 the Employer stated that it has been unable to locate the Union’s request for statutory recognition under Schedule A1 of TULRCA (1992) “following reasonable and proportionate searches”. It raised concerns that it had been unable to engage meaningfully in the statutory process due to this. It also stated that it maintained concerns in relation to “The identification of the employing entity, where there appears to be some inconsistency which may give rise to uncertainty as to the correct respondent” and “Certain aspects of the proposed bargaining unit and the underlying data, which the Company considers warrant careful consideration against the statutory tests.”

8. Considerations

23)       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 and submissions of the parties in reaching its decision. 

24)       As set out above, the Union stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer by email on 6 April 2026. The Employer stated it was unable to locate the formal request for recognition following extensive searches in the covering letter provided with its response on 25 May 2026. On 26 June 2026 the Employer maintained that it was unable to identify any record of a statutory recognition request being received.

25)       The Panel asked the Union to provide evidence that it had submitted a request for recognition under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Union referred to documents sent with its initial application. These included an email it had sent to the Employer time at 12:45 on 6 April 2026. This email had been sent to an enquiries email address for the Employer. The relay message stated that delivery to the recipient was complete, but the Union did not receive a delivery receipt back.

26)       The Panel must determine whether the request email, sent on 6 April 2026, was received by the Employer. We conclude that the email was sent by the Union. That has been well evidenced. There is nothing to suggest that the email address was wrongly typed or that using a general enquiries email would render the application invalid. The Union also provided evidence that delivery to recipients was “complete”. Although it appears that the server accepted delivery, this is not the same as reaching the Employer’s inbox. No receipt notification was sent by the Employer. There are many reasons why an email may not reach an inbox. We have to determine in this case whether, on the balance of probabilities, the email did reach the inbox. The Employer says, in its letter attached to the response to the application, that: “Extensive searches of the designated email address cited in the application …, together with all relevant internal systems and records, have been conducted. These searches confirm that no correspondence from the RMT requesting recognition was received prior to the application”.

27)       It is, of course, understandable that the Union would query this because they submitted both the voluntary recognition request under Schedule A1 and the CAC application to the same email address. However, for a variety of reasons, sometimes emails are sent but not received. That is why it may be prudent both to warn a recipient of an impending email application and to check for receipt once sent. Taking all this into account we have concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the email request email was not received by the Employer.

28)       Paragraph 5 provides that the request is not valid unless it is received by the employer. Accordingly, the Panel has concluded that the Union’s letter dated 6 April 2026 submitted to the Employer requesting recognition was not a valid request for recognition under Schedule A1.

29)       The Panel did not consider the other admissibility tests as the Union did not satisfy the requirement for paragraph 5.

9. Decision

30)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Derek Devereux

Ms Claire Sullivan

22 July 2026