Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 8 June 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1567(2026)

8 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:

RMT

and

Telent Technology Services Limited

1. Introduction

1)         RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 8 May 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Telent Technology Services Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “ All non-management employees on the Transport for London Communication Assets Maintenance Contract”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “All locations”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 8 May 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 15 May 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 Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham and Ms Joanna Brown. 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 22 May 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 19 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 22 April 2026. The Union stated that the Employer had refused its request in a letter dated 6 May 2026, in which the Employer stated that it was not in a position to consider recognition or to engage in collective bargaining discussions. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s letter of 6 May 2026 were 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 2466. The Union stated that there were 50 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 23 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 8 May 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 22 April 2026 and that it had refused the request but indicated a willingness to negotiate. The Employer said that it had responded to the initial letter on 6 May 2026 and stated that it was considering the points raised. The Employer explained that it had only a limited existing recognition arrangement arising from a historic TUPE transfer in 2007. The Employer requested further clarification on the proposed bargaining unit, roles, locations, and form of representation, and stated that it is not currently in a position to consider recognition or engage in collective bargaining discussions, though it invited the Union to raise any specific concerns.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 8 May 2026. The Employer, when asked whether it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before receiving a copy of the application form, did not address this question. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.

12)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 2462. The Employer said that there were 78 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.

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, “The recognition request has presently only been made by one union” 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 in response to whether it was aware of any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it was not aware of any previous applications having been made. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Additional comments from the Union

15)       On 20 May 2026 the Union sent further comments on the Employers response. The Union response was that it disagreed with the Employer’s characterisation of its response, stating that the Employer had clearly refused the request in its letter of 6 May 2026 by saying it was not in a position to consider recognition or engage in collective bargaining. The Union also said it had responded to the Employer’s request for clarification, but the Employer had not replied and had yet to provide a response. The Union’s comments were cross-copied, and the Employer was not invited to provide any further comment by the Panel Chair.

6. 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 18 May 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

17)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 27 May 2026 and from the Union on 20 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 78 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 22 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 20, a membership level of 25.64%. 

19)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 28 May 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 3 June 2026.

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

20)       Both parties confirmed that they did not wish to make any comments on the membership report.

8. Considerations

21)       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. 

22)       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 12 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

23)       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%. 

24)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraph 18 above) showed that 25.64 of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (20 out of 78 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

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

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Ms Joanna Brown

8 June 2026