Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 30 May 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1464(2025)

30 May 2025

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:

The Society of Radiographers 

and

Inhealth Limited

1. Introduction

1)         The Society of Radiographers (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 25 April 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Inhealth Limited (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “MAMMOGRAPHERS AND ASSISTANT PRACTITIONERS AT THE JARVIS BREAST SCREENING CENTRE employed by Inhealth Limited.”  The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Stoughton Rd, Guildford, GU1 1LH.”  The application was received by the CAC on 28 April 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by a letter of the same date.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 May 2025 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, Mr Martin Kirke, and Mr Sean Starbuck.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 13 May 2025.  The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 30 May 2025.

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. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 20 September 2025 and 17 October 2025 seeking voluntary recognition. The Employer responded on the 9 October 2024 stating that they do not formally recognise trade unions.^{[footnote 1]}  A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s letter of 9 October 2024 were attached to its 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 reiterated the points stated in paragraph 5 above.   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 57. The Union said that there were 23 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 20 were members of the Union.  When asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said that a survey of 20 members was carried out of which the results were attached to its application.  The Union explained that “due to technical issues, 3 of the 20 were unable to complete the survey and agreed via email.”  The Union also attached to its application a redacted version of those e-mails.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because within the Jarvis Breast Screening Centre there were many roles that covered a number of professions. The Union further adding that “We only represent mammographers and assistant practitioners undertaking imaging.”  The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.   The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware that covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence.   The Union had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 25 April 2025. 

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition dated 20 September by post, on 4 October 2024.   The Employer responded by letter of 9 October 2024 declining the Union’s request.  The Employer explained that it received a further copy of the Union’s request letter on 17 October 2024.  The Employer therefore re-sent its letter of 9 October 2024 to the Union on 21 October 2024.  A copy of the Employer’s letter dated 9 October 2024 was attached to its response.

11)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 28 April 2025.  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, nor did it now agree the proposed bargaining unit.   The Employer explained that this group of workers were “a mix of employees under InHealth terms and conditions of  employment and only based at one site that delivers breast screening; we also have a cohort of staff at this site who are on a dynamic agenda for change contract at the site the Trade Union are applying to negotiate on behalf of, this was due to a TUPE transfer in 2017.”

12)       When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer said that as the request for recognition was declined, it did not propose that Acas be requested to assist.

13)    Responding to the question as to whether it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application, the Employer answered, “In principle”.    The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer explained that it was important to note that within this division it had Agenda for Change contracts that were relevant for a number of workers within the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer said that it was therefore important to understand that the pay increase(s) for those workers came directly from the NHS, and that it was not part of those negotiations.

14)       When asked to give reasons if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it did not hold details of workers who were part of a Trade Union, and that it trusted that the Union had provided accurate information.  The Employer said that it would however be useful if the Union could provide numbers against each job title of members so that it could check that it matched its data.

15)       When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer said “Not applicable.”

16)       Finally, the Employer answered “Not applicable” when asked both 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 it had received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. The membership and support check

17)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit and of the Union’s petition.  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) and a copy of the results of its petition.  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 May 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

18)       The information requested from Employer was received by the CAC on 8 May 2025, and from the Union on 9 May 2025.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

19)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 20 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 20 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 16 a membership level of 80%.

20)       The Union also provided the results of an electronic petition.  In its covering e-mail the Union said that the question put to its members was as follows:

Do you wish for the Society of Radiographers to apply for statutory recognition in order that we can negotiate with your employer on pay, benefits, terms and conditions?

21)       The Union further stated that “We sent the survey to members we had recorded and through discussions with our local representative. Members accessed the survey, using the membership number, completed and submitted.”  The Union explained that when setting up the survey the Union linked the membership number with the member it was sent to, and this was carried out using the Alchemer survey platform and Adestra software for the mailing system.   Each member received an e-mail containing a link that was unique to them, which then automatically filled in their membership number.  The Union also checked membership numbers in order to ensure that they were correct.  Three members were unable to complete the survey, and therefore they were sent an email to “ask that their vote to accept recognition be counted.” Of those individuals who sent an e-mail, the Union checked their email, name, workplace and membership number, where provided.  Those individuals who voted by e-mail were added to the results spreadsheet.

22)      The results of the Union’s petition were set out within a spreadsheet, which contained the following headings, “Time Started”, “Date Submitted”, “Status”, “IP Address”, “Name”, and “Do you wish for the Society of Radiographers to apply for statutory recognition in order that we can negotiate with your employer on pay, benefits, terms and conditions?”.   Beneath this question it stated “Yes” for each entry. Beneath the heading “Date Submitted”, the dates ranged between 27 March 2025 and 24 April 2025. 

23)       The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 16 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 80% of the proposed bargaining unit.  Of the 16 signatories, all were members of the Union (80% of the bargaining unit). 

24)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 14 May 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by noon on 20 May 2025.  Due to a technical error, the Report was re-sent to the parties on 20 May 2025 and the new deadline for comments was noon on 22 May 2025.

25)       No comments were received from the parties.

6. Considerations

26)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

27)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.  

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

28)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17 - 19 above) showed that 80% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 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 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

29)       Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.  For the reasons given in paragraph 28 above the level of membership of the Unions is 80%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition.   In this case the Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 80% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (16 out of 20 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraphs 20 – 23 above). Of those who had signed the petition all were members of the Union (80% of the proposed bargaining unit).    

30)     On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule. 

7. Decision

31)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 27 - 30 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Andrew James, Panel Chair

Mr Martin Kirke 

Mr Sean Starbuck

30 May 2025       

---

1. See however paragraph 10. ↩