Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 18 September 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1599(2026)

17 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:

Unite the Union

and

Kongsberg Maritime Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 11 August 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Kongsberg Maritime Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprised of “Service Engineers, including the following roles: Senior Field Service Engineer and Field Service Engineer”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “United Kingdom.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 11 August 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 18 August 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 Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr John Rawling and Mr Matt Smith OBE. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 25 August 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 22 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 stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 23 July 2026. It said that the Employer had refused the request. A copy of the Union’s request letter and the Employer’s letter in response of 6 August 2026 was attached to the 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 221. It further stated that there were 17 workers in the proposed bargaining unit of whom 14 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 10 August 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 received the Union’s written request for recognition on 23 July 2026. It explained that it had refused the request by a letter dated 6 August 2026. In that letter it stated that, after consideration, it would not enter into a voluntary recognition agreement for the proposed bargaining unit of UK‑based Service Engineers. The Employer explained that its established approach is to engage directly with employees through regular communication, leadership visits, and structured feedback channels such as the Workday Peakon employee voice platform. The Employer maintained that employees already had effective channels to raise concerns and influence outcomes directly and therefore did not consider a bargaining unit of Service Engineers to be the right vehicle.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 10 August 2026. When asked whether it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before receiving a copy of the application form, the Employer stated “No”. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.

12)       When asked to confirm the total number of workers it employed, the Employer stated 232. The Employer said that there were 19 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application. When asked to explain the reason for any difference, the Employer stated that the Union’s application identifies 17 staff in the bargaining unit, whereas the Employer considers the bargaining unit should comprise 19 employees: those in the roles of Service Engineer, Senior Service Engineer, and one Lead Service Engineer, all of whom are employed and managed through its Aberdeen site although geographically located across the UK. The Employer said its figure also included one Senior Service Engineer who remained on different terms and conditions following a TUPE transfer.

13)       The Employer stated that there is no existing recognition agreement in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked whether it agreed with the Union’s estimate of membership within the bargaining unit, the Employer did not respond to this question.

14)       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 the Employer stated, “No”. In response to whether it was aware of any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it was not aware of any previous applications having been made. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Clarification of the bargaining unit description

15)       Having seen the Employer’s response, the Panel Chair asked the Union to confirm its description of the proposed bargaining unit and whether it was intended to include the role of Lead Service Engineer referred to in the Employer’s Response.

16)       In an email dated 24 August 2026, the Union confirmed that it intended to include the role of Lead Service Engineer referred to in the Employer’s Response: its description of the proposed bargaining unit did not limit it to the specific roles of Senior Field Service Engineer and Field Service Engineer, it merely stated that these two roles were included. 

17)       The Union’s email was cross‑copied on 24 August 2026. The Panel Chair confirmed that no further comments were required from the Employer in relation to this matter, and that the CAC would now carry out a membership check.

6. The membership check

18)       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 August 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

19)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 27 August 2026 and from the Union on 25 August 2026.   

20)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 19 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 16 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 15, a membership level of 78.95%. 

21)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 1 September 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 4 September 2026.

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

22)       In an email dated 4 September 2026, the Employer stated that, although the CAC had not requested comments on its view regarding whether a ballot would be necessary should the Union’s application be valid and admissible, it believed that a ballot would be in keeping with good industrial practice and would ensure that staff had a say in the process. The Employer also noted that the Union had referred to a member who did not appear on the list provided by the Company. It said that it wished to have a clear view of who the Union considered to be within the bargaining unit, in case that individual was employed in a role that did not fall within the proposed bargaining unit or in case the bargaining unit now being proposed differed from that set out in the Union’s application. The Employer stated that this matter should be addressed before any decision on the application was reached, so that all parties had clarity on the bargaining unit.

23)       In an email dated 1 September 2026, the Union stated that it currently had at least 78.95% membership within the proposed bargaining unit according to the CAC’s figures, which was well above the 10% threshold required under paragraph 171B. The Union therefore confirmed that its application for statutory recognition remains.

8. Considerations

24)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 of this decision are satisfied. The Panel has considered all the evidence submitted by the parties in reaching its decision. 

25)       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.

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 showed that 78.95% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (15 out of 19 workers) were members of the Union. The Panel notes the Employer’s concern that the Union’s list referred to a member who did not appear on the list provided by the Company and might not be in the bargaining unit proposed in the Union’s application, but that individual was not taken into account when assessing the percentage of union members in the bargaining unit. The membership check was based on the list the Employer provided of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit. 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

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr John Rawling

Mr Matt Smith OBE

17 September 2026