Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 23 July 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1585(2026)

22 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:

Unite the Union

and

Jesuits in Britain CIO

1. Introduction

1)       Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 3 July 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Jesuits in Britain CIO (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all Staff employed within the Jesuit Refugee Service.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “The Hurtado Jesuit Centre, 2 Chandler Street, London, E1W 2QT.” The Employer submitted a response dated 8 July 2026.

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 Brian Hooper. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)         The CAC Panel extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 17 July 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 3 August 2026 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership and support 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. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 18 June 2026. The Union said that the Employer responded by email on 22 June 2026 saying: “my response remains as expressed in my letter of 22 May, i.e. that the Jesuits in Britain CIO does not believe that it is desirable or necessary formally to recognise a union at its workplaces.” The Union attached a copy of its request letter dated 18 June 2026 and the Employer’s response email 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 answered, “no.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did not propose that ACAS should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 387. The Union stated that there were 29 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit the Union said it had 7 members in the proposed bargaining unit.

8)         The Union said that the 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 bargaining unit, the Union answered, “No.”

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 3 July 2026 and that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to ACAS.

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

10)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 18 June 2026. The Employer said that it had responded on 22 June 2026 refusing the request.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 29 June 2026. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit.

12)       The Employer stated that it had 312 workers. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and said the current figure was 25. The Employer said that it did not know why the figure stated by the Union on its application form was different and added “we employ c. 312 staff nationally, of whom 25 are at JRS (not 29 as per the application).”

13)       The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered, “no.”

14)       The Employer said it was not aware of any previous application under Schedule A1 for statutory recognition made by this Trade Union in respect of this bargaining unit or a similar bargaining unit, and it had not received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it did not consent to its contact details being forwarded to ACAS.

15)       In an email to the CAC dated 8 July 2026 the Employer said that it wished to add the following:

• “While Jesuits in Britain CIO employs 300+ people nationally, this application concerns only those at one site (Jesuit Refugee Service). The union has suggested that 29 people are employed at that site; our records show that this is in fact 25.
• In reference to question 9, the union has suggested in their application that there are 7 union members in the bargaining unit. We do not collect data on union membership and so can neither confirm nor dispute this figure.
• After submitting their application, the union wrote to me to inform me that “for administrative reasons, this application is withdrawn”. I attach the email in question. I am unsure, therefore, if this case is in fact to proceed and welcome your guidance on this point.”

5. Summary of the Union’s comments on the Employer’s response to the application

16)       In an email dated 13 July 2026 the Union said “I wrote to the employer to withdraw the previous application on the instruction of the CAC representative, who advised that the CAC application was made prematurely, despite the employer having already declined the Schedule A1 request for voluntary recognition. An interpretation that I felt to be erroneous, but nonetheless not so onerous as to justify contesting. I assert, therefore, that the application is valid since the union clearly meets the eligibility criteria for application (having the requisite membership numbers in the proposed bargaining unit and having submitted a Schedule A1 request). Do let me know if there are any matters I can clarify.”^{[footnote 1]}

6. The membership and support check

17)       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 13 July 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

18)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 16 July 2026 and from the Employer on 15 July 2026. 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 25 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 28.00%. 

20)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 16 July 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 22 July 2026.

7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

21)       In an email to the CAC dated 16 July 2026 the Employer said: “I have no comment to make on the comparison exercise, which appears to confirm the union’s assertion as to their membership (which we had no reason to disbelieve, only than that we could not confirm it as we do not hold the information).

22)       The Union did not return any comments.

8. Considerations

23)       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. 

24)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule to recognise it for collective bargaining in respect of the proposed bargaining unit as described in paragraph 1 of this decision. The request was made in writing and identified the Union, the proposed bargaining unit and that the request was made under the Schedule. The Panel is also satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 and that the application was made in accordance with paragraph 11 in that before the end of the first period the Employer had informed the Union that the Employer did not accept the request for recognition (without indicating a willingness to negotiate).

25)       The remaining issue for the Panel to address is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.

Paragraph 36(1)

26)       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%. 

27)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17-20 above) showed that 28.00% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (7 out of 25 workers) 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 the required percentage of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule.

9. Decision

28)       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 Brian Hooper

22 July 2026

---

1. The Union withdraw their first application to the CAC on 29 June 2026 due to administrative reasons. The application was re submitted and copied again to the Employer on 3 July 2026 as application TUR1/1585(2026). ↩