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-telent-technology-services-limited-1/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1538(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
Telent Technology 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 Telent Technology Services Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all non-management employees on the Transport for London Fire Safety Assets Maintenance Contract, including Engineers 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 22 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 Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Deborah England and Ms Joanne Kaye. 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 7 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 responded on 17 April 2026 refusing the request. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s response letter was attached to the Union’s application. The Union acknowledged receipt of the Employer’s response and by further email dated 17 April 2026 to the Employer said: “RMT considers all non-management employees on the Transport for London Fire Safety Assets Maintenance Contract, including Engineers and Supervisors to be clear. With regards to the form of representation being sought, RMT would like to collectively bargain for employees within the prospective bargaining unit on matters such as pay, hours, holidays, health & safety, policies and procedures. However, RMT has a willingness to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that is suitable for both parties. We have noted that Telent are ‘not in a position to consider recognition or to engage in collective bargaining discussions.’ RMT will consider this a formal rejection of our request under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Therefore, within the current statutory framework, RMT will seek to submit an application the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), where we are confident this will result in a decision to grant RMT recognition or hold a ballot with the cost split between RMT and Telent.”
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 2466. The Union stated that there were 49 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 28 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 on 17 April 2026 it had responded to the Union refusing the request but indicating a willingness to negotiate. The Employer attached a copy of their letter to the Union dated 17 April 2026 which stated:
“Thank you for your correspondence requesting voluntary recognition of the RMT in respect of colleagues working within Telent.
We acknowledge receipt of your request and confirm that Telent is considering the points you have raised.
Telent has an extremely limited and discrete historic trade union recognition arrangement in place, covering a very small number of our colleagues and which arose from a historic TUPE into Telent in 2007.
Before we are in a position to respond substantively, we do need to better understand your request. To enable this, please could you provide clarification on the proposed bargaining unit, the specific roles and locations you believe would be in scope, and the form of representation being sought. Given the contract-specific nature of your request, it is important for us to assess scope and alignment with our existing colleague engagement arrangements.
We are therefore, not in a position to consider recognition or to engage in collective bargaining discussions. However, if there are material concerns you wish to discuss with us, please make me aware of those concerns.
We will respond further once we receive additional information from yourselves. If you need to contact me in the meantime, please feel free to do so on the details below.”
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 and added “we do not feel that the union provided sufficient information to enable us to engage a third party, including ACAS.”
12) The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 2462. The Employer said that there were 102 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. The Employer said, “we are unclear as to why RMT have a different worker population for the proposed bargaining unit.” 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 agree with the Union’s estimate of membership in the bargaining unit the Employer answered “no”.
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 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 30 April 2026 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Union and the Union were invited to comment. In an email dated 12 May 2026 the Union responded and stated “RMT disagrees with the response provided by the employer, namely ‘Refuse the request but indicated a willingness to negotiate’. In the employer’s letter dated 17th April 2026, it was stated that the employer was ‘not in a position to consider recognition or to engage in collective bargaining discussions. On this basis, RMT considers the employer’s position to ‘refuse the request’. RMT also responded to the employer’s letter also dated 17 April 2026, addressing the points of clarification raised. However, the employer did not provide a reply at that time and has yet to respond.” In relation to the figure (102) provided by the Employer of the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union said it would not dispute this figure.
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 102 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 28 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 27, a membership level of 26.47%.
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 e-mail to the CAC dated 20 May 2026 the Union stated that it did not wish to comment.
21) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 26 May 2026 the Employer stated that it did not have any comments to make.
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. The Panel has considered the Employer’s response dated 17 April 2026 to the Union’s request for recognition dated 6 April 2026 and is satisfied that this amounted to the Employer informing the Union that it did not accept the request and that it did not demonstrate a true willingness to negotiate.
The letter from the Employer said: “Before we are in a position to respond substantively, we do need to better understand your request. To enable this, please could you provide clarification on the proposed bargaining unit, the specific roles and locations you believe would be in scope, and the form of representation being sought. Given the contract-specific nature of your request, it is important for us to assess scope and alignment with our existing colleague engagement arrangements.” The Union responded to the Employer’s letter that same day (17 April 2026), addressing the points of clarification raised however, the Employer did not provide a reply. The Panel are therefore satisfied that there was no willingness on the part of the Employer to negotiate. Paragraph 11 of the Schedule is clear that if before the end of the first period (10 working days starting with the day after that on which the employer receives the request for recognition) the employer informs the union that it does not accept the request (without indicating a willingness to negotiate) the union can apply to the CAC.
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 26.47% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (27 out of 102 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
Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair
Ms Deborah England
Ms Joanne Kaye
1 June 2026