Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 26 October 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1604(2026)

26 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

STM Group (UK) Limited

1. Introduction

1)         RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 2 September 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by STM Group (UK) Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “all non-management employees working on the First Rail London London Overground contracts.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “all locations.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 September 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 5 October 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 Paul Swann, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Ms Joanna Brown. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Emma Bentley.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 16 September 2026. The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions 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. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 30 October 2026.

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 17 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.

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 1085. The Union stated that there were 150 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 73 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 2 September 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 did not provide its response to the application by the initial deadline of 9 September 2026. The Case Manager attempted to contact the Employer by telephone on 10 September 2026 and by email on 11 September 2026. A formal reminder letter was also issued on 11 September 2026 setting out the previous attempts made by the CAC to obtain a response. On 14 September 2026, an email was received from a different Employer representative requesting that previous correspondence be re-sent. The Panel Chair, having considered this email, subsequently provided the Employer with a further opportunity to respond and granted an extension until 28 September 2026. No response was received by the deadline.

11)       On 29 September 2026, the Case Manager attempted to contact the Employer by telephone to request that it complete and return its response form. On 30 September 2026, the Employer contacted the CAC and advised that it had not received the earlier correspondence. The Panel Chair therefore granted a further extension until 7 October 2026. The Employer’s response, dated 5 October 2026, was received by the CAC on 6 October 2026.

12)       The Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 17 July 2026. The Employer said that it had failed to respond to the request.

13)       The Employer confirmed 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.

14)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 883. The Employer said that there were 146 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.

15)       When asked whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the bargaining unit the Employer answered “No”.

16)       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. 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 12 October 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

18)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 12 October 2026 and from the Union on 8 October 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 164 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 80 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 64, a membership level of 39.02%.

20)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 13 October 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 16 October 2026.

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

21)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 15 October 2026 the Union stated that it did not wish to comment.

22)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 19 October 2026 the Employer stated that it had provided the number of all employees in the proposed bargaining unit. It understood that the Union had provided only the number of members, which was why there was a difference between the figures.

7. 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 submitted by the parties in reaching its decision.

24)       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

25)       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%.

26)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17-20 above) showed that 39.02% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (64 out of 164 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 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.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Ms Joanna Brown

26 October 2026