Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 6 October 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1596(2026)

05 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 & The FDA Union

and

The Financial Conduct Authority

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union & The FDA Union (the Unions) submitted an application to the CAC on 5 August 2026 that they should be recognised for collective bargaining by The Financial Conduct Authority (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All employees at the level of Head of Department and below.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “All workplaces.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 6 August 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 12 August 2026 which was copied to the Unions.

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 Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham and Mr Brian Hooper. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Lauren Hyatt.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 19 August 2026. The acceptance period was extended to 2 September to allow the Union to comment on the Employer’s response. It was then extended to 9 September, followed by the 16 September 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. It was extended for a final time to 30 September to allow the decision to be drafted.

2. Issues

4)         The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Unions’ 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 Unions’ application

5)         In their application the Unions said that they had sent their request for recognition to the Employer on 19 June 2026. The Unions stated that in a letter dated 29 June 2026 the Employer had refused the request. A copy of the Unions’ request letter and the Employer’s letter of 29 June 2026 were attached to the Unions’ application.

6)         When asked whether the Unions had made previous applications under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Unions answered “Yes” and that it was made on 3 March 2022. It clarified that the previous application was not accepted “as a result of insufficient data to demonstrate the eligibility criteria”. The Unions 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 Unions confirmed that the application was a joint application. When asked how they will cooperate with each other they stated that they have a productive working relationship, with representatives from both Unions joint working within the Employer’s consultative structures. They stated that they plan to establish a joint representative forum and have come to a provisional agreement on how to structure this to ensure fairness for members of both Unions.

8)           The Unions stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 5,663. The Unions stated that there were 5,613 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 758 were members of the Union.

9)           In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Unions said “No”. The Unions said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

10)       The Unions confirmed that they both held a current certificate of independence. Finally, the Unions stated that they had copied their application and supporting documents to the Employer on 5 August 2026. The Unions consented to their contact details being forwarded to Acas.

4. The Employer’s response to the Unions’ application

11)       The Employer stated that it had received the Unions’ written request for recognition on 19 June 2026. The Employer said that it had responded to the initial letter on 29 June 2026 and refused the request. A copy of the Employer’s letter of 29 June 2026 was attached to its response.

12)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Unions on 5 August 2026. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Unions, agreed the bargaining unit with the Unions. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Unions’ request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.

13)       The Employer said that the total number of workers it employed was 5,599. The Employer said that there were 5,490 workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Unions’ application and that these figures had been derived from its primary information system ‘Workday’. It clarified reasons why it believed its figures may differ from those provided on the application form, and also confirmed that “The unions have confirmed that PSR staff (an independent subsidiary of the FCA) are not included in the proposed bargaining unit and these have therefore been excluded from this calculation.” The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14)       When asked whether it agreed with the Unions’ estimate of membership in the bargaining unit the Employer answered “No”.

15) The Employer answered “Yes” 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, and clarified that this was an application submitted in 2022 that did not pass the admissibility criteria, and answered ‘No’ when asked whether had it received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

16)       The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. Additional comments from the parties

17)       On 17 August 2026 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Unions and requested comments on the discrepancy in numbers of workers in the proposed bargaining unit provided by the Employer and Unions. In response the Unions stated that when the application form was completed workers from a subsidiary of the Financial Conduct Authority ‘PSR’ were included in error.

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 unions 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 Unions 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 21 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, from Unite the Union on 26 August 2026 and the FDA on 24 August 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

20)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 5,490 workers in the Unions’ proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by Unions contained 718 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 676, a membership level of 12.31%.

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 close of business on 7 September 2026.

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

22)       In an email to the CAC dated 7 September 2026 the Unions stated that they had no comments, but noted that the membership check confirmed that the membership level exceeded the 10% requirement for acceptance.

23)       In an email to the CAC dated 7 September 2026 the Employer confirmed it had no comments to make on the membership check.

8. Considerations

24)       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.

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.

Paragraph 36

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 18-21 above) showed that 12.31%. of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (676 out of 5,490 workers) were members of the Unions. As stated in paragraph 26 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 unions 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

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Brian Hooper

05 October 2026