Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 12 February 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1518(2026)

12 February 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

OCS Group UK Limited

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 6 January 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by OCS Group UK Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All OCS Group UK Limited employees working within the Soft Services BA Contract at London Heathrow Airport and at Waterside Headquarters.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as Wellington Road, London Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 Landside, Hounslow TW6 2GA Carrus Cargo Centre Sealand Road, London Heathrow Airport, Hounslow, TW6 2JS TBA (Technical Block A): TBA, EAST CHURCH ROAD, HEATHROW AIRPORT TW6 2JA. Waterside, Speedbird Way, Harmondsworth, UB7 0GB.” The CAC gave notice of receipt of the application to the parties on 6 January 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 13 January 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 Laura Prince K.C, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Martin Kirke, and Mr Steve Gillan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 20 January 2026.  The acceptance period was extended to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 12 February 2026.

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 sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 3 December 2026 and that the Employer had not responded. A copy of the Union’s request was 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 approximately 130,000. The Union said that there were 125 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, and whom 80 were members of the Union. The Union offered to supply its membership data to the CAC on a confidential basis.  When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union said that a majority of workers within the bargaining unit were members of the Union and that its membership density had increased “following it being made known to the workforce that the union is going to seek recognition for collective bargaining.”

8)         The Union explained that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because those workers were cleaners who shared similar job functions and terms and conditions of employment. In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union stated “No”. The Union said that it was not aware of any existing recognition agreement that covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

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 6 January 2026. 

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

10)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 3 December 2026. The Employer said that to date, it had not responded to the Union’s request. 

11)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 6 January 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, and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer explained why it believed that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective Management. However, this is a matter that will, if necessary, be considered at the next stage.

12)       The Employer said that following receipt of the Union’s request it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.

13)    The Employer said that the total number of workers employed by it was circa 50,000. The Employer said that it disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application, further stating that it believed the number was 128 and that the reason for the slight difference was unknown.

14)       The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

15)       When asked for its reasons for disagreeing with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that the Union alleged to have 80 members in the proposed bargaining unit and that it had provided no evidence.   The Employer said that it neither agreed nor disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership and requested that the CAC carry out an independent membership check in order for this to be determined.  The Employer further adding that only fully paid-up members of the Union within the proposed bargaining unit should count towards the membership for the purposes of the application.

16)       When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer said that it reserved the right to comment fully once a membership and support check was undertaken but in the meantime it believed that it was important to note that other than providing unsupported information on its membership in its application, the Union provided no other evidence of support for recognition amongst the proposed bargaining unit.   The Employer said that it was not aware of any petitions to canvass views in respect of recognition and collective bargaining on behalf of the proposed bargaining unit.   It was the Employer’s view that the Panel should not concede on the membership figures alone that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, and that the Union should provide evidence of likely majority support.   The Employer said that the Union had offered discounted membership to employees in the proposed bargaining unit, and it therefore asked for a full membership and support check to be carried out.

17)       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 answered “N/A”.   

18)       Finally, the Employer had not received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. The membership and support check

19)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), 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 15 January 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

20)       The information requested from the Union was received by the Union on 19 January 2026, and from the Employer on 20 January 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

21)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 141 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  Beneath the heading “Job Title” the titles provided were Account Director, Admin Support, Assistant Manager, Cleaning Operative, Cleaning Supervisor, Health & Safety Manager, Property & Logistics, Property & Logistics Duty Manager, and Receptionist. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 74 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 74, a membership level of 52.48%.

22)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 22 January 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 27 January 2026.

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

23)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 23 January 2026, the Union said it was concerned about the discrepancies in the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union explained that it had previously stated that there were 125 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Employer had indicated 128 on 13 January 2026. The Union said that the Employer was unable to explain the difference. The Union said that the figure now being claimed by the Employer was 141 as of 19 January 2026.

24)       The Union said that for the purposes of the statutory recognition process, the figure of 128 should be used.   The Union maintained that any subsequent increase appeared to be inconsistent and could affect the thresholds for recognition.  The Union said that using the inflated figure of 141 did not accurately reflect those employees who were part of the bargaining unit at the relevant date, and that it could be subject to challenge by the CAC.

25)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 27 January 2026 the Employer said that the Union has to show that it has specific support for recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of the proposed bargaining unit and that membership alone did not demonstrate this, given that individuals could become union members for very many different reasons that were unconnected with union recognition. 

26)       Further, the Employer said that it was aware that the union had offered discounted membership to colleagues in the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer therefore believed that the membership data could well have been skewed by the fact that individuals were currently only paying reduced subs, and that there was no guarantee that they would continue to pay full subs.

27)       The Employer said that the Union had provided no further evidence of support for recognition amongst the proposed bargaining unit and it was not aware of any such evidence.   The Employer said that it had not received any feedback from a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit indicating that they would favour recognition. 

7. Considerations

28)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence material to the matters it is required to decide in reaching its decision.

29)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule.     The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

30)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 19-21 above) showed that 52.48% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (74 out of 141 workers) were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 20 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 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

31)       Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. As stated in paragraph 30 above, the membership check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 74 out of 141 workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union, representing a membership level of 52.48%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case.

32)    On the evidence before it the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule. 

8. Concluding observations

33)     Finally, the Panel notes the Union’s comments, set out in paragraphs 23 and 24 above, concerning the discrepancies in the number of workers in proposed bargaining unit. As the admissibility criteria have been met whichever figure is used, the Panel has not found it necessary to investigate the Union’s concerns for the purposes of this decision.

9. Decision

34)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 29-32 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Laura Prince K.C.

Mr Martin Kirke

Mr Steve Gillan

12 February 2026