Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 29 May 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1549(2026)

29 May 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

S R S Rail System 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 S R S Rail System Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All Fitters and Mobile Fitters based at Bolsover”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 23 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 30 April 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 Andrew James, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mark Pennifold and Mr Nigel Cotgrove. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

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 2 June 2026, to allow the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider these 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 written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 6 April 2026 and that the Employer had failed to respond to this request. A copy of the Union’s letter of 6 April 2026 was enclosed with the application.

6)         According to the Union, there was a total of 45 workers employed by the Employer with 15 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 3 members within the proposed bargaining unit.

7)         The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer and that they had a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that they copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 22 April 2026.

8)         Finally, the Union said there had not been a previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and there was no existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

9)         The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s formal request for recognition on 23 April 2026. When asked about its response, the Employer stated that it had failed to respond to this request.

10)       When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form directly from the Union, the Employer stated this was 23 April 2026. The Employer confirmed that it had not agreed the bargaining unit prior to having received a copy of the completed application form but when asked did it agree the bargaining unit, it answered “No”.

11)       The Employer stated that it employed 43 workers. The Employer did not agree with the Union’s figure as to the number of workers in the bargaining unit, explaining that there were currently 7 workers within the bargaining unit. 

12)       The Employer confirmed that there was no recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. When asked whether, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”. 

13)       Finally, when asked whether it was aware of any previous application submitted by the Union under the Schedule in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, or whether it had received any other applications for statutory recognition relating to workers within the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer confirmed that it was not aware of any such applications.

5. The membership check

14)       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 30 April 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

15)       The information requested from the Employer and Union was both received on 30 April 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

16)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 7 workers and the list of members supplied by the Union contained 4 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 1, giving a membership level of 14.29%.  A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 1 May 2026 and the parties’ comments were invited.   

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

17)       No comments were received from either party by the imposed deadline.

7. Considerations

18)       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. 

19)       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)

20)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 16 above showed that 14.29% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the parties. The Panel therefore finds that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mr Mark Pennifold

Mr Nigel Cotgrove

29 May 2026