Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 8 December 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1500(2025)

05 December 2025

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 Office Concierge Company Limited t/a Anabas Welcome

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 22 October 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by The Office Concierge Company Limited t/a Anabas Welcome (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All employees employed by Anabas Welcome in the role of front of house receptionist who are engaged in the Howard de Walden 4-year contract. Unite the Union reasonable believe this to be 18 employees.”  The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Employment contract states employer is located at Anabus Welcome 38 Wigmore Street, London, W1U 2RU, employees may be required to work at different locations under the needs of the business.” The application was received by the CAC on 22 October 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by letter of the same date.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 29 October 2025 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 Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Ms Julia Buck and Mr Brian Hooper. 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 5 November 2025.  The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions in order to allow time for a membership check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider the comments before arriving at a decision.   The final extension ends the acceptance period on 5 December 2025.

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 7 October 2025.  The Union said by letter of 7 October 2025 the Employer declined its request.  A copy of the Union’s request, and the Employer’s letter of 7 October 2025 were attached to the Union’s application.

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)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 300. There were 18 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 17 were members of the Union.  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 stated on 8 October 2025 15 members of Unite the Union had e-mailed HR individually expressing their support for a collective agreement.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because it comprised the Ex Howard de Walden employees who TUPE transferred to Anadus welcome and they were tied to the Howard de walden front of house contract.  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.   The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 7 and 8 October 2025.  

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 7 October 2025.  The Employer had responded to the Union’s request by letter of 7 October 2025.  The Employer said that it had been successfully engaged in consultation directly with staff in respect of the TUPE transfer and that it proposed to continue that process rather than consult through the Union.  A copy of the Employer’s letter to the Union was attached to the Employer’s response. 

11)       The Employer stated that no application form or supporting documents had been received from the Union.  The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, nor did it agree with the proposed bargaining unit.  The Employer further stated that it believed the appropriate bargaining unit, consistent with the effective management of Anabas Welcome’s contracts with the Howard de Walden Estate and staff employed within those contracts, was the entire body of Anabas Welcome staff who were employed to work across all of the Howard de Walden Estate properties at which Anabas Welcome provided outsourced services.   The Employer had further explained why it believed the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with effective management.  However, this is an issue that will, if necessary, be considered by the Panel at a later stage of the statutory recognition process.

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

13)       The Employer stated that it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application.  The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14)       In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated that no information had been provided by the Union to evidence its estimate of membership.  The Employer had received 11 e mails from staff employed in the proposed bargaining unit (all in identical terms) in support of the Union’s request for recognition.   However, those e mails did not indicate whether the individuals sending them were members of the Union.  The Employer explained that at the time of the TUPE transfer of the staff, on 1 October 2025, the information provided by the transferor was that only one of the employees in the bargaining unit proposed by the Union was a union member.  The Employer therefore believed that the Union’s estimate of membership was inflated.

15)       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 the information available, as set out in paragraph 14 above, suggested that 11 out of the 18 staff would encourage Anabas Welcome to engage with the Union to discuss recognition.   The Employer said that it had employed the staff within the proposed bargaining unit with effect only from 1 October 2025, less than a month ago.

16)       The Employer said that it was confident that the transferred staff would recognise that its approach of consulting directly with staff was supportive and effective., and that this view was based on its many years of experience of employing in excess of 145 staff in the sector. This was the first occasion on which it had received a request for voluntary recognition. The Employer believed that this evidenced its successful staff engagement and that the recently transferred staff who were employed in the bargaining unit proposed by the Union would recognise this.

17)       The Employer stated that it was not aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, nor had it received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. Additional comments from the parties

18)       On 29 October 2025 the CAC copied the Employer’s response to the application to the Union and the Union was invited to comment on the Employer’s submissions that the Union had not served a copy of the application directly on the Employer contrary to paragraph 34(b) of Schedule A1.  The Union was asked to provide evidence of service should such evidence be in the Union’s possession.

19)       On 31 October 2025 the Union confirmed that the application had been copied to the Employer that day, 31 October 2025, with a copy also sent to the CAC. The Union said that it believed that this action was not time-limited and therefore it fell within the permitted timeframe.

20)       The Union further stated that the membership numbers had not been inflated, as suggested by the Employer.  The Union was happy to engage in a membership check with Acas or the CAC to provide the necessary evidence.   Furthermore, the Union was happy to discuss the definition of the bargaining unit to include all front-of-house personnel who worked on the Howard de Walden contract. The Union believed that the group comprised of 23 employees.

6. The membership and support check

21)       To assist 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 full names and 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. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 13 November 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

22)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 14 November 2025 and from the Union on 17 November 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

23)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 18 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 17 names.

24)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 17, a membership level of 94.44%.  The Panel is satisfied that the checks were conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

25)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 20 November 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by the close of business on 24 November 2025.

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

26)       In an e-mail to the CAC, dated 21 November 2025 the Employer acknowledged receipt of the report and stated that it had “no comments on the content of the letter.”

27)       In an e-mail to the CAC, dated 22 November 2025, the Union said that the check confirmed that it held 94.44% membership density in the proposed bargaining unit.   The Union believed that the Union should therefore, “now be awarded by the CAC.” The Union said that it was prepared to hold Acas facilitated talks to determine if a voluntary agreement could be reached and that it would accept the statutory mechanism if the Employer refused this approach.  The Union further stated that “It is the position of Unite the Union, all our members support a collective agreement as demonstrated by every member recently requesting my presence at a 1-2-1 with HR and the majority of members emailing the head of HR Gemma Rigby a request they recognise Unite the Union on or around the 8th October 2025.   I am able to provide proof of this if required by the CAC.”

8. 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 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. 

31)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 21 - 25 above) showed that 94.44% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 22 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)

32)       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.   The Panel is tasked therefore to determine likely, not actual, majority support for Union recognition.

33)       The Union relied on its density of union membership as evidence that there was majority support for collective bargaining, which the Employer did not dispute.

34)       The Panel is of the view that the level of membership within the proposed bargaining unit can be taken as a legitimate indicator of the strength of support for the Union. With an apparent density of membership of 94.44% in its proposed bargaining unit, the Panel has therefore reached the conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, 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.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair

Ms Julia Buck

Mr Brian Hooper

05 December 2025