Acceptance Decision
Updated 29 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-victa-railfreight-limited/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1546(2026)
25 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
Victa Railfreight 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 Victa Railfreight Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “all non-management employees”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “all locations.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 23 April 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 29 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 Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Ms Joanna Brown. 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 7 May 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 23 June 2026 and further extended to 25 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 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 53. The Union stated that there were 42 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 8 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 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 27 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.
12) The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 55. The Employer said that there were “not verified” workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application for Question 7 in the Employer Response Form. 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 5 May 2026 the CAC emailed the Employer requesting further information on Question 7 of the Employer Response Form as it had answered “not verified” in response to the question concerning the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. In response to this email, on 7 May 2026, the Employer said,
“With regard to Question 7 – I did add a note about this within the email:
Please note that regarding the bargaining unit, is it unclear what is meant by ‘non-management’
We have 2 hubs where ground staff are employed, Tilbury where there are 8-10 ground staff and Buxton where there are 14. We have 38 employees in total. Other than the ground staff, the remaining employees carry out administrative and management functions”
16) A further email from the CAC was sent to the Employer regarding the workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application on 11 May 2026. The CAC wrote:
“We understand your answer to confirm that there are up to 24 employees within the proposed bargaining unit.
Please let us know if this understanding is incorrect”
17) The Employer responded to the email of 11 May 2026 sent from the CAC on 12 May 2026:
“I cannot confirm the numbers in the proposed bargaining unit because I do not understand what is meant by “all non-management employees”. I think the application should be rejected for that reason.
I can only confirm that we have 22- 24 ground staff and what I said in my email of 7 May, we have 2 hubs where ground staff are employed, Tilbury where there are 8-10 ground staff and Buxton where there are 14. We have 38 employees in total. Other than the ground staff, the remaining employees carry out administrative and management functions”.
18) The CAC emailed the Employer Response form on 22 May 2026 to the Union for comment. The Union wrote to the CAC on 22 May 2026:
“RMT is content to consider a prospective bargaining unit comprising all non-management employees to consist of the 24 ground staff employees working at Buxton and Tilbury only.
RMT does not consider that the CAC application should be rejected on the grounds set out in the employer’s response dated 12th May 2026. It is standard practice for parties to engage in discussions to clarify and determine the appropriate scope of the prospective bargaining unit following the submission of a CAC application.”
6. The membership check
19) 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 2 June 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
20) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 5 June 2026 and from the Union on 2 June 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
21) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 48 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 7 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 7, a membership level of 14.58%.
22) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 9 June 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 12 June 2026.
7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership check
23) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 16 June 2026 the Union stated that it had noted several job titles may fall outside a bargaining unit covering all non-management employees. The Union did however state that if the CAC accepted the Union’s application, then the next stage would allow the parties to agree an appropriate bargaining unit.
24) In an email to the CAC dated 23 June 2026 the Employer stated it has recruited 5 additional employees since the membership check was conducted.
8. Considerations
25) 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.
26) 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
27) 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%.
28) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 19-22 above) showed that 14.58% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (7 out of 48 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 20 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
29) 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 Mustafa Faruqi
Ms Joanna Brown
25 June 2026