Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 29 May 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1541(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

Story Plant 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 Story Plant Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All Crane Controllers, Plant Operators and other Manual Plant Workers at all locations”. The Employer responded to the application on 30 April 2026.

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 Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Joseph Corcos and Mr Christopher Burrows. 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 4 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)         The Union stated in its application that it had submitted a formal request for recognition to the Employer on 6 April 2026. The Union confirmed that the Employer refused this request in an email dated 14 April 2026. Copies of both the Union’s request of 6 April 2026 and the Employer’s response of 14 April 2026 were enclosed with the application.

6)         When asked whether, following receipt of its request for recognition, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Union said that it had not. According to the Union, 233 workers are employed by the Employer with 148 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 38 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 it had not made 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 6 April 2026. When asked about its response, the Employer stated that it had refused the request in an email to the Union dated 14 April 2026.

10)       When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form directly from the Union, the Employer stated this was 24 April 2026. When asked whether it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union prior to receiving a copy of the application form, the Employer responded: “No.”

11)       When asked whether, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”. 

12)       The Employer stated that it employed 243 workers.  When asked how many workers were in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, it stated 140. In response to the question of whether there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated: “No” and said a previous agreement ceased to have effect on 11 November 2024.

13)       When asked whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the bargaining unit as stated in the application, the Employers said “No”.

14)       When asked whether it was aware of any previous application for statutory recognition by this Union in respect of the same or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer said “No” and that, as far as it was aware, the only previous application was for a voluntary agreement.

15)       Finally, when asked if it had received any other applications for statutory recognition in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer said “No”.

5. The membership 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 1 May 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

17)       The requested information was received by the CAC from the Union on 1 May 2026 and from the Employer on 7 May 2026.

18)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 134 workers and the list of members supplied by the Union contained 38 names. The names common to both lists indicated that the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 34, giving a membership level of 25.37%. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 7 May 2026 and the parties’ comments were invited.   

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

19)       In an email dated 11 May 2026 the Employer stated that it did not have any further comments on the membership check. No comments were received from the Union by the given deadline.

7. Considerations

20)       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. 

21)       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 only remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criterion set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule is met.

Paragraph 36(1)

22)       Under paragraph 36(1) 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 18 above showed that 25.37% 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) of the Schedule.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr Joseph Corcos

Mr Christopher Burrows

29 May 2026