Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 24 April 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1527(2026)

17 March 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

The Cochrane Collaboration

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) on 9 February 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by The Cochrane Collaboration (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All Staff employed in the United Kingdom.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as 1-13 Cavendish Square, London W1G 0AN. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 9 February 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 12 February 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 Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr David Cadger and Mr Paul Moloney. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis and for the purpose of this decision, Nigel Cookson.

2. Issues

3)         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 should be accepted because it is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9, made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12 and admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of the Schedule.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 23 February 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 18 March 2026 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.

3. The Union’s application

5)         In its application the Union said that it had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 19 January 2026. The Union said that the Employer did not respond to the request although it noted receipt of the application to workplace representatives. 

6)         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)         According to the Union, the Employer employed 89 workers, all of whom fell within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 24 members within the proposed bargaining unit and its membership list could be provided to the CAC when necessary. 

8)         When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated that a petition demonstrating majority support could be provided to the CAC when necessary. When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that the bargaining unit represented a discrete operational unit covered by the law of England and Wales.

9)         The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. When asked whether there was any existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the bargaining unit, the Union answered ‘no’.

10)       The Union confirmed it had sent a copy of its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 9 February 2026 and, finally, when asked if it had made a previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, the Union did not answer.

4. The Employer’s response to the application

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 19 January 2026 via email to the Chief Executive Officer (the CEO) and Chief Operating Officer (the COO) and that, in addition, one of the newly appointed employee representatives had emailed directly to the CEO and COO on two dates – 20 January 2026 to introduce themselves and again on 23 January 2026. On 2 February 2026 the COO emailed the employee representative by way of a reply to their emails of 20 & 23 January 2026 requesting further information given that the Employer was concerned that not all employees had been approached. This email was forwarded to the Union on 2 February 2026. Copies of the emails of 2 and 4 February 2026 were attached to its response.

12)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union on 9 February 2026 via email. When asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before it had received a copy of the application form from the Union, the Employer stated “No – we had presumed that this discussion would have followed our request for clarity on the information sought – as per the email of 2 February”.

13)       Asked whether it agreed the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it did not on the basis that the bargaining unit was described as ‘All UK employees’ but it would appear that some employees had been excluded from the initial collating by the Union of those interested in membership in the stated bargaining unit.

14)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, the Employer had proposed that Acas be requested to assist, the Employer stated it did not ask Acas to assist.

15)       When asked to state the number of workers employed, the Employer confirmed there were 93 workers in total.

16)       When asked if it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application the Employer answered no. It stated that the Union had given the figure of 89 in its application form and the Employer was unable to identify the shortfall of 4 employees. The Employer would have liked to have understood this through initial communications before getting to the CAC stage.

17)       The Employer said there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated:

“We have 93 employees at the date of completion of this form (12 Feb). Our headcount numbers are available to all employees (i.e. including employee union representatives) through our Job Family framework and therefore we are unsure why the estimation is lower than reality, given the information is so readily available.”.

18)       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 stated,

“We have had some employees come forward to say that they had no knowledge of any union information gathering, which we understand took place, nor were they approached to ascertain their interest in membership. This feels out of kilter with our inclusive culture and was why we wanted to seek clarity from Unite in the first instance to ensure no exclusions in any of our Directorates.”.

19)       Finally, the Employer answered ‘N/A’ when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit. Asked whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer once again answered ‘N/A’.

5. The membership and support check

20)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, (1) whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and (2) 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 and support 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 full names and dates of birth, and a copy of the petition in support of recognition mentioned in its application. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the names of the employees and members within the bargaining unit and the petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 25 February 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

21)       The Union provided a membership list by way of a spreadsheet containing the details of 32 individuals and a petition with 57 signatures. In its covering email the Union stated ‘The petition verified the authenticity of signatories by requiring that they provide a signature. The PDFs of which I will include in a further password protected email’. The pdfs took the form of a single A4 sheet for each signatory with the Unite logo and carried the following proposition:

The Cochrane Collaboration - Petition in Support of Union Recognition.

Unite the Union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise Unite for collective bargaining, please sign the petition.

I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining including pay, hours and holidays.

Name

Job Title

Signature

…

Each individual pdf was dated with the dates ranging between 7 January 2026 and 25 February 2026 and next to the proposition as to whether the signatory supported recognition of the union was a field for a response with all of the pdfs having ‘Yes’ in this field. The pdfs had the name, job title and electronic signature of each signatory.

22)       In addition to the pdfs the Union also provided a spreadsheet which combined the information from the separate pdf pages with columns headed: “Submission Date”, “I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining including pay, hours and holidays”, “Name, Job Title and Signature”. For each entry under the column headed “I support recognition of Unite…” was ‘yes’. The submission dates on the spreadsheet matched those on the pdfs ranging between 7 January 2026 and 25 February 2026.

23)       The Employer provided a spreadsheet with the details of 91 workers with columns headed “Worker Full Name”, “DOB” and “Job Title”. The job titles that were provided were set out in full in the membership report.

24)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 32, a membership level of 35.16%. The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 57 workers in the proposed bargaining unit however two of the signatures were duplicated, leaving 55 unique signatories. This represented 60.44% of the proposed bargaining unit. Thirty-two signatories were members of the Union and 23, that is 25.27% of the petition signatories, were non-members. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 26 February 2026 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership and support check

25)       In an email dated 9 March 2026 the Union stated:

“Our only comments are that the report clearly shows that we meet the required threshold for eligibility following our standard means of assessing support (a petition with unique personal signatures from each signatory)”.

26)       In an email also dated 9 March 2026 the Employer stated:

“We have reviewed the documents sent through and are content to at the necessary engagement activity we requested of Unite has taken place. We confirmed with Unite via email that we were content to go ahead with voluntary recognition - this was sent to them on 27 February last, but we have yet to receive anything further from them.”.

7. Considerations

27)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide if the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 above are satisfied. The Panel has carefully considered the parties’ submissions and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

28)       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 criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

29)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described above showed that 35.16% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed 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 and accordingly, this test is met.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

30)       The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether 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. The Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list provided by the Employer showed that 55 of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 60.44%. The Panel believes that based on this metric alone it is likely that a majority of the workers would favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining purposes. There has been no evidence put forward that would persuade the Panel otherwise.

31)       For that reason that Panel is satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union and this test is also met.

8. Decision

32)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr David Cadger

Mr Paul Moloney

17 March 2026