Acceptance Decision
Updated 16 October 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-tssa-transport-for-london-tfl/application-progress
Case Number: TUR1/1583(2026)
28 September 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
Transport for London (TfL)
1. Introduction
1) TSSA (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 17 June 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Transport for London (TfL) (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Senior Managers, Bands 4 and 5 employed by Transport for London.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “5 Endeavour Square, Stratford Cross, London E20 1JN. Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Rd, London, SE1 8NJ. 14 Pier Walk, Greenwich Peninsula, London SE10 0ES. Victoria Station House, 191 Victoria Street London, SW1E 5NE.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 17 June 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 19 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 Paul Swann, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Martin Kirke 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 1 July 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 27 July 2026, 31 August 2026, 16 September 2026 and finally extended to 28 September 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 30 April 2026. The Union stated that the Employer had refused the request. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s letter of 18 May 2026 were 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 9589* estimate. The Union stated that there were 1469 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 159 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 17 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 30 April 2026. The Employer said that it had responded to the initial letter on 18 May 2026 and refused the request.
11) The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 17 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 8364. The Employer said that there was 1475 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. 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 answered “Yes”.
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 did not consent to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.
5. Additional comments from the parties
15) The CAC requested an initial membership check on 13 July 2026, with the parties requested to provide the information by 17 July 2026. The information requested was received from the Union on 16 July 2026 and from the Employer on 17 July 2027.
16) The membership check report was sent to the parties on 21 July 2026 and recorded a membership level of 9.27%. Under paragraph 171B ‘the required percentage’ currently means 10%.
17) In an email dated 24 July 2026, the Union provided comments on the membership check report for consideration by the Panel. The Union raised a number of points concerning the information used to calculate the membership percentage. These included questions regarding the number and classification of employees included within the proposed bargaining unit, including certain Band 4 and Band 5 roles. The Union referred to roles which it considered to fall within the scope of the proposed bargaining unit and raised a question regarding the inclusion of an employee whose job title was recorded as ‘Contractor Generic’.
18) The Union also raised a query concerning the information held on its membership records. It noted that it had been unable to reconcile certain aspects of the Employer’s information with its own records and suggested that discrepancies in individuals’ name might account for the membership check had been obtained, particularly in light of the extension to the original decision deadline.
19) The Union also referred to changes in the number of Band 4 and Band 5 employees over the preceding year and provided its observations regarding the organisation and representation of members within the proposed bargaining unit.
20) In an email dated 4 August 2026, the Employer responded to the matters raised by the Union. The Employer confirmed that, following a re-check of the information provided, one employee had been incorrectly identified as ‘Director of Property Development’ and should not have appeared in the information provided. The Employer also confirmed that an employee whose job title had been recorded as ‘Contract Generic’ was a permanent employee within the proposed bargaining unit and that the job title had been incorrectly recorded. It stated that the correct job title was ‘Senior GLA Group Collaboration Manager’.
21) The Employer stated that the information used for the membership check had been prepared specifically in response to the CAC’s request and had been drawn from its systems on 15 July 2026. It stated that it considered the information provided to represent the most up-to-date and accurate information available at that time.
22) The Employer also raised the possibility that the Union’s membership records included employees who had been seconded into roles within the proposed bargaining unit from substantive roles which were already subject to agreed collective bargaining arrangements. The Employer did not agree with the Union’s observations concerning the number of employees within the proposed bargaining unit or the creation of additional senior management roles and maintained that the membership threshold had not been met.
23) On 7 August 2026, the CAC wrote to the parties advising that a revised membership check be undertaken in due course.
6. The membership check
24) 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 21 August 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
25) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 25 August 2026 and from the Union on 27 August 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
26) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 1487 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 153 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 150, a membership level of 10.08%.
27) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 2 September 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by close of business on 7 September 2026.
7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership check
28) The Union did not comment on the report.
29) The Employer did not comment on the report.
8. Considerations
30) 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.
31) 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
32) 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%.
33) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 24-27 above) showed that 10.08% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (150 out of 1487 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 25 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
34) 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 Martin Kirke
Mr Nicholas Childs
28 September 2026