Recognition Decision
Updated 19 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-unite-the-union-kongsberg-maritime-limited/recognition-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1599(2026)
19 October 2026
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
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 Employer submitted a response dated 18 August 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 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) By its written decision dated 17 September 2026, the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. On 2 October 2026, the parties notified the CAC that they had reached agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit, which was defined as “Lead Service Engineer, Senior Service Engineer and Service Engineer”. The parties confirmed that the agreed wording did not alter the scope or composition of the bargaining unit in the Union’s application but simply provided a more precise and detailed description of the workers covered by it. The Panel accepted that this bargaining unit was the same as that proposed in the Union’s application, just more clearly defined.
2. Issues
4) Paragraph 22 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) provides that, if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2). However, paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. These are:
(a) The CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.
(b) The CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.
(c) Membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.
5) Paragraph 22(5) provides that “membership evidence” for these purposes is:
(a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or
(b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.
3. The Union’s position
6) In an email dated 5 October 2026 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. In an email dated 5 October 2026, the Union stated that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and therefore contended that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union noted that the CAC’s membership check had established that 78.95% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union.
4. The Employer’s position
7) On 5 October 2026, the CAC copied the Union’s email of the same date to the Employer and invited the Employer to make submissions on the Union’s claim to majority membership within the bargaining unit and on the three qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.
8) In its response dated 8 October 2026, the Employer stated that it had no further submissions to make regarding the Union’s statement on majority membership. The Employer further stated that it had no reason to challenge or dispute the Union’s assertion that it enjoyed majority membership within the bargaining unit.
5. The Panel’s conclusions
9) The membership and support check conducted on 1 September 2026 showed that 15 out of 19 workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union, a membership level of 78.95%. No evidence has been received to indicate that union membership within the bargaining unit has decreased. Accordingly, the Panel accepts that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.
10) No evidence has been submitted to indicate that holding a secret ballot would be in the interests of good industrial relations. In its submissions, the Employer stated that the Panel should arrange a ballot or, in the alternative, carry out a fresh membership check. However, the Employer did not provide evidence to demonstrate that a ballot is required on good industrial relations grounds. The Panel is satisfied that the condition in paragraph 22(4)(a) does not apply.
11) The CAC has received no evidence from union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel is satisfied that the condition in paragraph 22(4)(b) does not apply.
12) No membership evidence has been produced to show that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel is satisfied that the condition in paragraph 22(4)(c) does not apply.
13) The CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit.
14) The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising of “Lead Service Engineer, Senior Service Engineer and Service Engineer”
Panel
Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair
Mr John Rawling
Mr Matt Smith OBE
19 October 2026