Validity Decision
Updated 1 May 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-the-office-concierge-company-limited-ta-anabas-welcome/validity-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1500(2025)
20 April 2026
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING
DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
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) By a decision dated 13 August 2025 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. By e-mails of 9 March 2026 the parties informed the CAC that the agreed bargaining comprised “all 42 employees employed by Anabas Welcome on the Howard de Walden Estate contract in the following roles: Front of House Receptionist, Front of House Elite Receptionist, Front of House Lunch Cover Receptionist, Office Manager. For the avoidance of doubt, the Front of House Supervisor and Account Manager roles are excluded from the agreed bargaining unit.”
2. Issues
4) As the determined bargaining unit differed from that proposed by the Union, the Panel is required by paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In a letter dated 10 March 2026 the Case Manager invited each party to make submissions on this matter for consideration by the Panel.
5) In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 11 March 2026 the Union made the following comments on the validity tests:
a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit? “No.”
b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit?
“Yes.”
c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition?
“Yes.”
d) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?
“No.”
e) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?
“No.”
6) Further, the Union confirmed that its position on union membership and support within the bargaining unit remained unchanged. It stated that it had previously demonstrated support for collective bargaining and that its members remained fully engaged in the process. The Union also indicated that it had good reason to believe that overall support for recognition among workers in the bargaining unit was higher, including support from non‑members, and that it remained willing to provide further evidence of support if required.
7) In a letter to the Case Manager dated 13 March 2026 the Employer made the following comments on the validity tests:
a) Is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit?
“There is no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the agreed bargaining unit.”
b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit?
In the Union’s original application relating to the previously proposed bargaining unit of 18 employees, the CAC indicated that there were 17 union members within that unit. The Employer said that it was not in a position to confirm whether those individuals remained union members or whether there were additional members within the wider bargaining unit.
c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition?
The agreed bargaining unit comprised 42 staff who work in properties in respect of which Anabas Welcome provide front of house reception services to the Howard de Warden estate. The majority of the staff in the agreed bargaining unit (23 of those 42 staff) work in properties in respect of which Anabas Welcome took on responsibility through a series of outsourcing arrangements between November 2022 and November 2024.
The minority of the employees in the agreed bargaining unit (17 of 42) transferred into Anabas Welcome’s employment in October 2025. Prior to the 17 staff transferring to Anabas Welcome in October 2025, Anabas Welcome had received no request for recognition in respect of any of the staff who worked on the Howard de Warden estate, nor had it received any indication that any of those staff were members of any trade union. Since October 2025 Anabas Welcome has received no indication from those staff that they are likely to seek or favour recognition.
The Employer said that it maintained regular and open channels of communication with employees who worked on the Howard de Walden Estate contract. Employees had direct access to local management and HR to raise any queries or concerns, and there were regular opportunities for engagement with senior leadership, including the Managing Director.
It was the Employer’s view that in light of the established communication arrangements within the workforce, the recent agreement on the scope of the bargaining unit, and the fact that Anabas Welcome was not in a position to verify union membership levels within the newly defined bargaining unit, the most reliable and transparent way to determine employees’ wishes would be through a secret ballot conducted in accordance with the statutory procedure.
d) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?
The Employer said that to the best of its knowledge, there was no competing application from another trade union in respect of this bargaining unit.
e) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?
“There has been no previous application for statutory recognition in respect of the agreed bargaining unit.”
3. Membership and support check
8) To assist the determination of two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely whether 10% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the determined bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 45(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the determined bargaining unit and a check of the petitions compiled by both the Union and the Employer. 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 determined 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 the 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 19 March 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
9) The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 20 March 2026 and from the Employer on 23 March 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
10) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 41 workers in the determined bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 20 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the determined bargaining unit was 18, a membership level of 43.90%.
11) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 27 March 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 2 April 2026.
4. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check
12) In a letter to the Case Manager, dated 30 March 2026, the Employer noted that 18 workers in the bargaining unit were union members. The Employer said that it was unable to independently verify the figures and that it had also noted that the membership was below a majority. In the circumstances, the Employer considered that a secret ballot would be the most reliable and transparent way to determine employees’ wishes on recognition.
13) In an e-mail to the Case Manager, dated 2 April 2026, the Union stated that while it acknowledged that membership was slightly below 50%, it had good reason to believe overall support for recognition among the bargaining unit was higher, including support from non-members. It considered that a majority of workers were likely to support recognition. The Union also indicated that it would be willing to provide further evidence of support, such as a petition, within an agreed timeframe if required.
5. Considerations
14) The Panel is required to decide whether the Union’s application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered carefully the submissions of the parties and all the other evidence before it.
15) The Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered invalid by any of the provisions in paragraphs 44 and 46 to 50 of the Schedule. The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the application is invalid under paragraph 45 of the Schedule.
Paragraph 45(a)
16) Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers in the determined bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 8 to 10 above) showed that 43.90% of the workers in the determined bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 9 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 determined bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.
Paragraph 45(b)
17) Paragraph 45(b) provides that the application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit determined by the CAC 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 rather than a strict arithmetical measure.
18) The Union relied on its density of union membership as evidence that there was majority support for collective bargaining
19) 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 43.90% 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.
6. Decision
20) For the reasons given in paragraphs 15-19 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid and that the CAC is proceeding with the application.
Panel
Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair
Ms Julia Buck
Mr Brian Hooper
20 April 2026