Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 12 October 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1606(2026)

12 October 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

Kingdom Cleaning Limited

1. Introduction

1)       Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 15 September 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Kingdom Cleaning Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All cleaning staff employed by Kingdom cleaning Limited save manager positions at Citigroup Centre, 25-33 Canada Square, Canary Wharf Estate, London E14 5LB.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “25-33 Canada Square, Canary Wharf Estate, London E14 5LB.” The Employer submitted a response dated 22 September 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 Benjimin Burgher, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Derek Devereux 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 29 September 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 19 October 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 10 August 2026. The Union said that the Employer failed to respond. The Union attached a copy of its request letter dated 10 August 2026 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 did not indicate the total number of workers employed by the Employer. The Union stated that there were approximately 100 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 26 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 15 September 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 30 July 2026. The Employer said that it had responded on 10 August 2026 refusing the request but indicating a willingness to negotiate. The Employer attached a copy of its letter.

11)       The Employer said that it had not received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union. 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 108 workers. The Employer did not state the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application and said that the reason it could not provide this information was because the Union had not disclosed it.

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 consented to its contact details being forwarded to ACAS.

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

15)       In an email dated 24 September 2026 the Union said “Kingdom has recorded 30 July 2026 as the date of Unite’s recognition request and 10 August 2026 as the date of its response. That is correct in relation to Unite’s original request. However, following Kingdom’s response on 10 August, Unite submitted a fresh Schedule A1 request on 10 August 2026, expressly confirming in the covering email that it superseded and replaced the previous request. The fresh request clarified the bargaining unit as covering 25–33 Canada Square. Kingdom did not respond to that fresh 10 August Schedule A1 request or respond to follow up emails. Kingdom now acknowledges that it received correspondence and an attachment from Unite on 10 August, but states that the attachment “was not a Schedule A1 and appeared to be a supporting letter”. The issue therefore appears to be the characterisation of the attachment rather than whether it was received. For clarity, I attach the document again. It is expressly headed “SCHEDULE A1: REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION”, requests recognition “pursuant to Schedule A1”, defines the proposed bargaining unit and states that, failing agreement, Unite intends to apply to the CAC for statutory recognition. It is dated 10 August 2026.

The 15 September date referred to by Kingdom was when Unite subsequently submitted its application to the CAC, copying Kingdom into that email. It was not the first occasion on which Kingdom received the fresh Schedule A1 request. I would also clarify Kingdom’s response of “Union did not disclose” regarding the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. Unite’s 10 August correspondence estimated approximately 100 employees, defined the roles intended to be included and asked Kingdom, as the employer holding the definitive workforce information, to confirm the number and provide a breakdown by job title. Kingdom has not provided a figure in response to that specific question, although its response gives a figure of 108 workers elsewhere.

Finally, Kingdom refers to its line manager having requested that the process be paused during annual leave. Unite was not asked to agree to any pause or extension and did not agree to one.

Unite welcomes Kingdom’s confirmation that it remains willing to negotiate and remains willing to engage constructively, including with Acas.”

6. Summary of the Employer’s further comments

16)       In an email dated 28 September 2026 the Employer said: “We acknowledge the clarification that the Union is relying upon the letter of 10 August as a fresh Schedule A1 request, following its amendment of the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer did not intentionally fail to respond to that request. This is the first statutory recognition application of this nature that we have dealt with, and we were not fully familiar with the applicable timescales or the significance being attached to the 10 August correspondence as a fresh Schedule A1 request. At the time, we had raised a number of points seeking clarification from the Union regarding its request and the proposed bargaining unit. Not all of those points were addressed, and our understanding was that further information and clarification remained outstanding. We were therefore awaiting further information from the Union before providing a substantive response.

We did intend to respond and engage with the Union. However, with the benefit of the clarification now provided, we recognise that a response was expected within the relevant timeframe and that this deadline was missed. This was an oversight arising from our understanding of the position and the process, rather than any deliberate refusal or failure to engage with the Union. We have continued to engage with the CAC process and have provided our Employer Response and subsequent clarification promptly when requested. We will, of course, continue to cooperate fully with the CAC, including with the anticipated membership check.”

7. 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 28 September 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

18)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 28 September 2026 and from the Employer on 1 October 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 116 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 26 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 21, a membership level of 18.10%. 

20)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 1 October 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 7 October 2026.

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

21)       In an email to the CAC dated 2 October 2026 the Union said: “Unite notes that the check identified 21 Unite members within the Employer’s list of 116 workers, representing 18.10% of the proposed bargaining unit. On that basis, Unite submits that the requirement under paragraph 36(1) of Schedule A1 is satisfied, with membership exceeding the current 10% required percentage under paragraph 171B. We note that five members on Unite’s list were not matched against the Employer’s list and we are reviewing those records. We also note that the Employer has now provided a list of 116 workers, compared with the figure of 108 previously provided to the CAC. The list does not provide job titles and includes the codes LCT, CGC, RDC and SSQ without explanation. We would welcome clarification of these points insofar as they are relevant to the composition of the proposed bargaining unit.

Finally, given Kingdom’s previous confirmation that it remains willing to negotiate, and the outcome of the membership check, Unite would welcome discussions with Kingdom to explore whether a voluntary recognition agreement can now be reached. In the meantime, Unite’s application to the CAC should continue in accordance with the statutory process.”

22)       In an email to the CAC dated 7 October 2026 the Employer said: “We note that the Union provided details of 26 individuals, five of whom do not appear on the Employer’s list of workers within the proposed bargaining unit. We further note that these five individuals have been excluded from the CAC’s calculation and that the CAC has identified 21 names common to both lists. On the basis of 21 individuals from the 116 workers identified by the Employer, the report records a membership proportion of 18.10%. Accordingly, based upon the comparison undertaken by the CAC and for the limited purpose of the paragraph 36 test, we acknowledge that the percentage identified in the report exceeds the current required percentage of 10%. We would also like to clarify the comments at paragraph 3 of the report regarding job titles and the codes LCT and CGC. These codes do not denote job roles or categories of worker; they identify the two buildings/sites. The operation is currently transitioning between these two sites, both of which are included within the address/location covered by the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.

With the exception of the Supervisor and Team Leader roles already specifically identified in our submission, the remaining workers included on our list are Cleaners. We trust this clarification assists the Panel in accurately interpreting the information provided by the Employer. For completeness, our comments above are limited to clarifying the information supplied and addressing the paragraph 36 membership threshold. They should not be construed as agreement with the composition or appropriateness of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, nor should they prejudice the Employer’s position on any other admissibility or substantive matter arising from the application.”

9. 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 dated 10 August 2026 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 (10 days) the Employer failed to respond to the request.

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 18.10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (21 out of 116 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.

10. Decision

28)       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 Derek Devereux

Mr Brian Hooper

12 October 2026