Acceptance Decision
Updated 1 June 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-maritime-transport-limited/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1558(2026)
1 June 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:
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT)
and
Maritime Transport Limited
1. Introduction
1) National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 22 April 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Maritime Transport Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all non-management employees at Doncaster iPort”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Doncaster iPort.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 27 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 5 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 John Rawling and Mr Ian Hanson QPM. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.
3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 12 May 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 2 June 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 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, “yes on 17 April 2024.” The Union went on to say “case Number: TUR1/1401(2024) - The Panel therefore decides that the Union’s application in this case does not satisfy the admissibility criterion that it is made in accordance with paragraph 11, in that it was not made in respect of the same proposed bargaining unit as set out in the request for recognition. For this reason, that the application is not accepted by the CAC.” 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 2857. The Union stated that there were 28 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 5 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 6 April 2026. The Employer said that it had failed to respond to the request. In a separate email dated 7 May 2026 the Employer said that the reason the request dated 6 April 2026 had not been responded to was because the email had gone into a “junk email folder.” The Employer said, “this was not noticed until the CAC application email was sent on 22/04/26 – that email was seen and the ‘junk email’ folder was then checked and it was then seen the earlier email had been sent and had been received but it had unfortunately not been read or responded to by Maritime.”
11) The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 22 April 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 3580. The Employer said that there were 32 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. In a separate email dated 7 May 2026 the Employer said that the Union had said that the number of workers in the bargaining unit was 28 however the Employer believed that using the definition provided by the Union of “all non-management employees at Doncaster iPort” this figure should be 32. The Employer said it believed the difference came from three roles that the Union was not counting in the proposed bargaining unit but that the Employer would count “these are 3 supervisor roles, where the supervision activity is yard and terminal operations supervision, it is not line management, and if any line management action is required, it would be referred to one of the two actual line managers at the site, who Maritime would class as ‘management employees’. The difference between 31 being the total number in the bargaining unit if these 3 roles are added to RMT’s estimate of 28, and Maritime saying now the number is 32, is because after RMT submitted the initial voluntary recognition request on 06/04/26, there has been the recruitment of 1 additional non-management employee at the site, and so the number is 32.” 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 “yes Case Number: TUR1/1401(2024)” 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, “no” when asked whether it had received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.
5. The Union’s comments on the Employer’s response
15) On 7 May 2026 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application and their follow-up email to the Union and the Union were invited to comment. In an email dated 12 May 2026 the Union responded and stated “RMT agrees with the prospective bargaining unit as outlined in the correspondence from the employer, consisting of a total of 32 workers.”
6. The membership and support 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 12 May 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
17) The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 12 May 2026 and from the Employer on 13 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 indicated that there were 32 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained five (5) names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was five (5), a membership level of 15.63%.
19) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 13 May 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 26 May 2026.
7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check
20) In an email to the CAC dated 20 May 2026 the Union stated that it did not wish to comment.
21) In an email to the CAC dated 21 May 2026 the Employer stated that it had no comments.
8. Considerations
22) 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.
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 criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.
Paragraph 36(1)
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 15.63% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (5 out of 32 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 17 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
Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair
Mr John Rawling
Mr Ian Hanson QPM
1 June 2026