Validity Decision
Updated 27 July 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/validity-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1538(2026)
27 July 2026
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING
AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT
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) By a decision dated 1 June 2026 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Following this decision, the parties reached agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. The agreed bargaining unit was described as “Engineering and Engineer Mate for the Transport for London Fire Safety Assets Maintenance Contract.”
2. Issues
4) As the agreed bargaining unit differs from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule.
3. Membership and support check
5) To assist in the determination of one of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely, whether members of the union constitute at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit (paragraph 45(a)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the agreed 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 agreed 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 the 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 8 July 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
6) The information from the Employer was received by the CAC on 8 July 2026 and from the Union on 13 July 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
7) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 81 workers in the agreed 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 agreed bargaining unit was 24, a membership level of 29.63%.
8) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 14 July 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the result of the check. In a previous letter dated 29 June 2026 the parties had also been invited to make their submissions on the validity tests for consideration by the Panel.
4. Union’s comments on the validity tests
9) In an email to the Case Manager dated 8 July 2026 the Union made the following comments on the validity tests:
(a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “No.”
(b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit? “Yes.”
(c) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit? “No.”
(d) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit? “No.”
10) The Union confirmed in an email dated 20 July 2026 that it did not wish to comment on the contents of the membership report dated 14 July 2026.
5. Employer’s comments on the validity tests
11) In an email to the Case Manager dated 2 July 2026 the Employer made the following comments on the validity tests:
(a) I can confirm there is no existing recognition agreement covering this group of colleagues.
(b) I am unable to confirm if the required 10% membership is met, however would anticipate this requirement being met. I assume the CAC would be able to confirm this with the membership check list the RMT has provided?
(c) I am not aware of any competing applications from another union in respect of this bargaining unit.
(d) There has not been any previous application in respect of this new bargaining unit with Telent. However, as this was a contractual TUPE to Telent on 15th September 2024, there may have been previous applications in respect of this bargaining unit when the contract was delivered by previous companies; Equans, Engie, MJ Quinn and Dalkia.
12) The Employer did not comment on the membership report.
6. Considerations
13) The Panel is required to decide whether the Union’s application is valid or invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and all the other evidence before it.
14) The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45 of the Schedule.
Paragraph 45(a)
15) Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (see paragraphs 5 to 8 above) showed that 29.63% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 6 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 (currently 10%) of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.
7. Decision
16) For the reasons given in paragraphs 13 - 15 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid, and that the CAC is proceeding with the application.
Panel
Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair
Ms Deborah England
Ms Joanne Kaye
27 July 2026