Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 11 June 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1557(2026)

11 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

Premier Rail Services 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 Premier Rail Services Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all General Operatives, Multi-Skilled Operatives, Team Leaders and Supervisors.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “all locations.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 27 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 4 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 Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Morris Stemp. 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 16 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, “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 57. The Union stated that there were 42 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 11 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 no record of receiving the Union’s written request for recognition. The Employer said “consequently, we were not aware of the request at the relevant time and were unable to respond. This resulted in a lost opportunity to refuse the request.” The Employer said that it had been provided with an email receipt by the CAC on 27 April 2026 dated 6 April 2026 at 12:32 which was from Microsoft Outlook Exchange to the Union and said:

“Subject Relayed: RMT Request for Voluntary Recognition – Premier Rail

Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server:

<info@premier-rail.co.uk%20(info@premier-rail.co.uk)>”

The Employer said that despite a thorough review of its email server records, it had been unable to locate any evidence that the email sent on 6 April 2026 had been received.

11)       The Employer said that it had not received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union. ^{[footnote 1]}

12)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 88. The Employer said that there were 67 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 did not answer.   

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, “no” when asked whether it had received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Union’s Comments on Employer’s response

15)       In an email dated 12 May 2026 the Union said that it was concerned that the Employer had said there was 67 workers in the bargaining unit particularly if this simply consisted of all General Operatives, Multi-Skilled Operatives, Team Leaders and Supervisors. The Union went on to say “with regards to the employer not receiving the initial letter or the CAC application, the initial letter was sent to info@premier-rail.co.uk (the email listed on the Premier Rail Services website) at 12:32 on 6th April and the CAC application email to enquiries@cac.gov.uk had the info@premier-rail.co.uk cc’d at 16:22 on 22nd April. Therefore, the employer should have received both the initial letter and the CAC application.”

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 13 May 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

17)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 20 May 2026 and from the Employer on 22 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 59 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 11 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 10, a membership level of 16.95%. 

19)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 26 May 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 2 June 2026.

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

20)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 2 June 2026 the Union stated that it did not wish to comment.

21)       The Employer did not return any 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 4 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision. 

23)       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 did not receive a formal 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”.

24)       Simply put, if the Employer did not receive the Union’s formal 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, but the period had not even commenced. In such circumstances as these, the Union’s application would be premature. When asked for evidence of service, the Union provided a copy of an email it had sent to the Employer timed at 12:32 on 6 April 2026. This email had been sent to the correct email address for the Employer and there was no evidence to suggest non-delivery of the email. The relay message stated that delivery to the recipient was complete, but the Union did not receive a delivery receipt back. The Panel is satisfied that the relay message confirmed that the email was successfully delivered and, therefore, can legally be deemed to have been received.

25)       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.

26)       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)

27)       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%. 

28)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 16-19 above) showed that 16.95% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (10 out of 59 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

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

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Morris Stemp

11 June 2026

---

1. In an email from the Union sent to the CAC dated 22 April attaching a copy of the application the Employer was CC’d in using the email address info@premier-rail.co.uk ↩