Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 24 July 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1580(2026)

24 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:

TSSA

and

Cross Country Trains LTD

1. Introduction

1)         TSSA (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 1 June 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Cross Country Trains LTD (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Duty Control Managers, Route Controllers, Customer Communications Specialists, Service Delivery Support Controllers, and Train Crew Controllers.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “5th Floor, Multistory, 18 The Priory Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6BS.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 1 June 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 8 June 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 Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Rob Lummis and Mr Paul Noon OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Emma Bentley.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 15 June 2026. The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions 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. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 24 July 2026.

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 11 November 2025. 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 2,187. The Union stated that there were 55 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 45 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 1 June 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 11 November 2025. The Employer confirmed it had responded to the request on 9 February 2026 which was enclosed with its response.

The Employer explained that it had engaged constructively with the Union’s request for voluntary recognition throughout the process. Following the Union’s initial approach, progress was delayed due to the unexpected long-term sickness absence of the HR Director, who had been expected to lead discussions. During this period, the Employer appointed a new Head of Industrial Relations.

Following the HR Director’s return, the new Head of Industrial Relations contacted the Union, and an initial meeting took place on 1 April, which was described as positive and constructive. The Union then provided a draft voluntary recognition agreement on 21 April, which the Employer reviewed internally while arrangements were being made for a follow-up meeting. Before those discussions could continue, the Employer received notification of the Union’s application for statutory recognition.

The Employer maintained that it had not refused to engage with the Union and that meaningful discussions on voluntary recognition had been underway before the statutory application was submitted. The Employer also indicated that it remained willing to continue the voluntary recognition process. In addition, the TSSA FTO who had been involved in the discussions returned to her previous role on 28 May 2026, and a temporary replacement FTO was identified, with whom the Employer first met on 27 May 2026.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 1 June 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 2,195. The Employer did not agree with the workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and said “There are 49 employees in the proposed bargaining unit whereas the TU have stated that there are 55. We are not aware of any reason for this difference.” 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 agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the bargaining unit the Employer did not answer.

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. The membership check

15)       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 25 June 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

16)       The information requested from both parties was received by the CAC on 30 June 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

17)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 42 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 40 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 30, a membership level of 71.43%.

18)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 1 July 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 6 July 2026.

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

19)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 7 July 2026, the Union stated that, as the CAC report indicated that it had 71% membership within the proposed bargaining unit, it had no further comments at that stage.

20)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 10 July 2026, the Employer stated that, having reviewed the comparison undertaken by the CAC, it had noted that there was a discrepancy between the union membership information provided and its records, in that 10 individuals identified within the membership check had not been able to be reconciled against its employee records. The Employer said that it had undertaken further checks in an attempt to identify the individuals and establish the reason for the discrepancy; however, it had been unable to reconcile the 10 names against its records or determine an explanation for the difference at that stage. The Employer further stated that it acknowledged that this discrepancy did not fundamentally change the membership check. The Employer said it did not have any further comments to provide at that stage.

7. Considerations

21)       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.

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 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

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 paragraphs 15-18 above) showed that 71.43% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (30 out of 42 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 16 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.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair

Mr Rob Lummis

Mr Paul Noon OBE

24 July 2026