Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 29 July 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1569(2026)

6 July 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

The Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company

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 The Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “all maritime and shoreside grades employed on the Sandbanks Ferry contract with the Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road & Ferry Company”. 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 Andrew James, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Deborah England and Mr Nicholas Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Medina Mia.

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 29 June 2026. It was extended again to 6 July 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 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 40. The Union stated that there were 30 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 6 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 8 May 2026. The Employer said that it had failed to respond to the request.

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 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.

12)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 39. In response to Question 7, which asked for the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, the Employer answered “TBC” and did not provide a figure. 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, 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. Additional comments from the parties

15)       On 19 May 2026 the Employer submitted its Employer Response Form together with a cover email. The Employer stated that it had not been aware of the Union’s request for voluntary recognition until 8 May 2026, when it received the Union’s application for recognition from the CAC. The Employer explained that the request for voluntary recognition had been sent to a former employee who had left the organization prior to the receipt of the request. The Employer further stated that the email account in question was only checked intermittently and was not subject to an automatic forwarding arrangement. The Employer indicated that it would have been willing to engage in constructive discussions regarding voluntary recognition and remained committed to doing so. In its response, the Employer also stated that: (i) it required further clarification regarding the proposed bargaining unit before it could provide employee numbers; (ii) it did not know how many employees were members of the Union; and (iii) it did not know how many employees supported recognition.

16)       On 21 May 2026 the CAC copied the Employer’s cover email and Employer Response form to the Union.

17)       On 22 May 2026, the Union shared its comments and stated that in response to Question 2, the Union explained that it submitted its Schedule A1 recognition request to the Employer on 22 April 2026 via email. An automated out-of-office reply was received confirming that the inbox was being monitored and that a member of the team would respond. The Union noted that the employee continued to be listed as Managing Director on the Employer’s website as of 22 May 2026. The Union also argued that, if the Employer was able to access the CAC application submitted on 8 May 2026, it was reasonable to conclude that it could similarly access or become aware of the Schedule A1 request sent on 22 April. The Union further explained that it had previously attempted to send the request to the email address listed on the Employer’s website, but this resulted in an undelivered email notification. The Union said that it therefore took steps to identify a working contract email and ensure that the request was properly submitted before making its CAC application. The Union stated that the proposed bargaining unit comprises employees working onboard vessels and those carrying out operational shoreside duties. It also confirmed that its CAC application sets out the number of bargaining unit employees who are members of the Union.

6. The membership check

18)       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 8 June 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

19)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 12 June 2026 and from the Union on 10 June 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

20)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 30 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 6 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 6, a membership level of 20%.

21)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 15 June 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 18 June 2026.

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

22)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 16 June 2026 the Union stated that it does not wish to comment on the membership check report.

23)       The Employer did not make any comments on the report.

8. Considerations

24)       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. 

25)       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

26)       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%.

27)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18-21 above) showed that 20% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (6 out of 30 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 19 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

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

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Ms Deborah England

Mr Nicholas Childs

6 July 2026