Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 16 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1496(2025)

16 October 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:

TSSA

and

First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited (T/a Avanti West Coast)

1. Introduction

1)         TSSA (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 23 September 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited T/a Avanti West Coast (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Preston Resources” based at Preston. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 23 September 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 30 September 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 Paul Swann, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr John Rawling and Mr Morris Stemp. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         The Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 7 October 2025. The acceptance period was extended to 21 October 2025 to allow time to conduct a membership check and for the parties to comment on the results before the Panel arrived 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. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 20 August 2025, and that the recognition request was refused due to the number of separate agreements currently in place

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 said no.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 3000 and 59 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 35 were Union members. The Union said that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

8)         Asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered, “No”.  When called upon to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated, they had 35 members which was 59% and that they could provide evidence of this.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit because, “The members of the proposed bargaining unit perform a discrete and unique function within the company of resourcing frontline staff (Train Managers, Drivers, Stations and Caterers) on a daily basis to ensure a robust running of the train service”.

10)       The Union confirmed that the proposed bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union answered, “N/a”.

11)       Finally, the Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence, and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 23 September 2025.

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

12)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it received the Union’s written request for recognition on 20 August 2025. The employer responded in a letter to the union dated 29 August 2025 stating that it noted the Unions stated intention to pursue a voluntary agreement without recourse to statutory proceedings. The Employer confirmed that FTWCRL (First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Limited) remained committed to fostering constructive industrial relations and recognised the value of voluntary arrangements where they supported operational coherence and mutual respect. The Employer said this was reflected in its previous voluntary recognition agreements with TSSA for Driver Managers and Controllers, and in our ongoing discussions regarding Onboard Managers where it continued to engage in good faith to reach a positive outcome. The Employer however, wanted to express concern regarding the increasing frequency and fragmentation of recognition requests for narrowly defined bargaining units. The Employer stated that approach of submitting successive applications to the Central Arbitration Committee for small, discrete groups of management grades risked undermining the spirit in which FTWCRL entered into earlier agreements. The Employer said this presented significant challenges to the effective management of its operations and did not reflect the integrated nature of our workforce or the collaborative principles that underpinned our industrial relations strategy. The Employer stated whilst it understood the Union’s preference for distinct recognition across management grades, the current pattern of applications appeared to be advancing a broader agenda for recognition that departed from the general principles of proportionality and coherence it had previously supported. The Employer confirmed it therefore was unable to agree to this latest request for voluntary recognition. The Employer said that in accordance with its statutory obligations under Schedule A1, it would respond formally to the Central Arbitration Committee should this matter proceed to determination and that it remained open to dialogue and encouraged a more strategic and unified approach to recognition that supported both employee representation and operational integrity.

13)       The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application on 23 September 2025. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.

14)       The Employer, when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, stated that no, that this application or bargaining unit had not been discussed between the organisations prior to notice from the CAC.

15)       The Employer confirmed it did not agree with the proposed bargaining unit, stating that it had not held any discussions with the Union regarding the proposal, and outlined its objections were as follows: That the proposed bargaining unit for employees within the resources team formed part of the significantly larger Management Grade within the business. The Employer said they shared very similar terms and conditions of employment and benefits as other groups of employees within this grade and were subject to centralised management processes. As such, the Employer did not consider them to be a unique and discrete function and that the proposed bargaining unit, therefore, represented a group of workers that was too narrow to be compatible with effective management. Also, the Employer said as part of this, it did not consider that having a small, fragmented bargaining unit was appropriate for effective management of the Management Grade as a whole.

16)       The Employer stated that it employed a total of 3900 workers in the Rail sector, under the Secretary of State, combining of Private and DfT OLR Holdings Limited (National Rail Contracts). When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application the Employer answered, “No”. The Employer, when asked if it agreed with the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference, stated that the number of workers formed part of an Operations directorate, which was significantly larger than the 59 employees quoted as working within the Preston resources team. The Employer indicated that if it were able to establish how the Union arrived at the figure of 59, it could then confirm its accuracy.

17)       The Employer when asked if there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, stated, “No. We do have a joint collective recognition agreement with TSSA, ASLEF and RMT for our Drivers, On-Board Train Manager and Catering team, and Station teams which covers circa 3000 employees. The CAC will be aware we have three voluntary recognition agreements now in place with TSSA. These additional most recent agreements are proving challenging to manage”.

18)       The Employer, when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit and to indicate its reasons for disagreement with any available evidence, responded that it did not have the membership information to either agree or disagree with. The Employer invited the Union to provide full membership details to enable a more informed view. The Employer stated that the Union had not provided an adequate explanation for proposing a small, fragmented bargaining unit and it believed the Union was seeking to propose this small bargaining unit to position itself better to secure recognition rather than considering what bargaining unit would be appropriate. For the reasons set out in the response to question 11, the Employer believed a full membership and support check should be carried out, particularly given the very small numbers involved and the impact that the membership status of one individual within the proposed bargaining unit could have on overall Union membership and/or support for recognition.

19)       When asked if the Employer considered that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition, and to indicate its reasons for taking this view, the Employer stated that it reserved the right to comment more fully pending receipt of any further membership data supporting the Union’s claim. The Employer explained that the test for the Union to meet was to show specific support for recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of the proposed bargaining unit, not merely general support for the Union. The Employer said apart from the details provided in its application regarding its stated membership; the Union had provided no other evidence of support for recognition among the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer confirmed it had also received recent information that a member of the TSSA Union had actively encouraged or pressured colleagues within the proposed bargaining unit to support the recognition application. While the Employer respected the right of employees to engage in union activity, it expressed concern that this approach might compromise the voluntary nature of support and create an environment where individuals felt unable to express dissenting views freely. This raised questions about whether the level of support claimed by the Union genuinely reflected the independent will of the wider group, particularly in the small and fragmented bargaining unit being proposed.

20)       The Employer believed that any recognition agreement should be based on informed, voluntary, and uncoerced support from the affected employees. In these circumstances, it submitted that the Panel should not infer, on membership numbers alone, that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to favour recognition. It requested that a full membership and support check be carried out.

21)       When requested to confirm if there had been any earlier application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, the Employer said, “We are not aware of any previous statutory recognition applications under Schedule A1 made by TSSA in respect of this specific bargaining unit. However, we believe it is important to highlight that we have already entered into three separate voluntary recognition agreements with TSSA for similar or related groups of employees. These agreements were established in good faith and in the spirit of developing a constructive industrial relations framework, particularly as TSSA holds joint recognition for some of our frontline teams. While we remain committed to positive engagement with trade unions, the cumulative effect of managing multiple, separate bargaining units is becoming increasingly burdensome. The addition of a fourth bargaining unit would further complicate HR processes, increase the risk of conflicting terms and conditions, and undermine consistency in employee relations across the organisation. We are particularly concerned that the proposed bargaining unit represents a small and fragmented group, which would further fragment industrial relations, reduce efficiency in negotiations, and place additional strain on already limited resources. This is especially problematic where the proposed unit overlaps with existing structures or creates inconsistencies in the application of terms across similar roles. We respectfully ask the CAC to consider these factors in assessing the appropriateness and practicality of the proposed bargaining unit”.

22)       Finally, when asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer answered, “N/A”.

5. The check of membership and support

23)       To assist 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.  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 full names and 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 1 October 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

24)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 7 October 2025 and from the Employer on 6 October 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially in accordance with the agreement with the parties.

25)       The list supplied by the Employer showed that there were 58 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 35 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 34, a membership level of 58.62%. 

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

26)       Neither of the parties submitted comments on the membership report within the specified deadline.^{[footnote 1]}

7. Considerations

27)       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 the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

28)       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 issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met. 

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

29)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 25 above showed that 58.62% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed 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)

30)       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.

31)       The Panel considers that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining. As stated above, these amount to 58.62% of the workers in the bargaining unit. On the basis of the evidence in this case, therefore, the Panel decides 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.

8. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Mr John Rawling

Mr Morris Stemp

16 October 2025

---

1. The Employer submitted its comments on the membership report on 15 October 2025, after the requested deadline. These comments were therefore considered late. The Employer did not request an extension to submit its response. Given the strict deadlines the CAC must adhere to, and in the absence of any extension request or justification, the Panel rejected the comments. ↩