Recognition Decision
Updated 1 July 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-royal-national-lifeboat-institution/recognition-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1526(2026)
30 June 2026
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT
The Parties:
Unite the Union
and
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution
1. Introduction
1) Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 5 February 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All permanent staff employed by The Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the Inshore Lifeboat Centre at Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32 6HB excluding senior managers and production managers.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Inshore Lifeboat Centre at Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32 6HB.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 5 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 Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Derek Devereux and Ms Joanna Brown. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) By a decision dated 23 March 2026 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 an e-mail dated 12 May 2026 the Union confirmed that that the bargaining unit had been agreed. In e-mails dated 12 May 2026 and 20 May 2026 the parties confirmed that they had reached agreement and that the bargaining unit should be described as “All staff employed by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the Inshore Lifeboat Centre, Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32 6HB, including apprentices and first-line production managers known as Section Leaders, but excluding all other managers.” As the appropriate bargaining unit determined by the Panel was different from that proposed by the Union in its application, the Panel was required by paragraph 20 of the Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Schedule) to determine whether the Union’s application was invalid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. By a decision dated 23 June 2026 the Panel determined that the application was not invalid and that the CAC would proceed with the application.
2. Issues
4) The next stage of the procedure required the Panel to decide whether a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. Paragraph 22 of the Schedule provides that if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies. Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of these qualifying conditions is fulfilled. The three qualifying conditions are:
(i) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;
(ii) the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;
(iii) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. Paragraph 22(5) states that “membership evidence” is (a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or (b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.
5) The Case Manager had conducted a check of the level of union membership within the bargaining unit in order to assist the Panel to decide whether the Union’s application was invalid. A report of the result of the check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 11 June 2026. This check showed that 91.49% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. For the reasons set out in paragraph 17 of its decision dated 23 June 2026 the Panel was satisfied that this check provided a proper representation of the level of union membership within the bargaining unit.
3. The Union’s claim to majority membership and submission it should be recognised without a ballot
6) In a letter dated 23 June 2026 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an e-mail dated 23 June 2026, stated that it had subjected its members to two separate membership checks and on both occasions, it had demonstrated that it had a majority of membership at the site and a majority of support via a petition. The Union further added that it had majority membership and support within the bargaining unit and therefore submits that it should be granted recognition without a ballot.
4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s claim and submission it should be recognised without a ballot
7) On 24 June 2026 the CAC copied the Union’s e-mail of 23 June 2026 to the Employer and invited the Employer to make submissions in relation to the Union’s claim that it had majority membership within the bargaining unit and the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule.
8) In an e-mail to the CAC dated 29 June 2026 the Employer said “In considering the qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4), the RNLI respectfully recognises that it is for the Committee to determine whether the statutory tests have been met and whether recognition should be granted with or without a ballot. The RNLI does not seek to advocate for any particular procedural outcome. Our focus throughout has been on ensuring that the process is conducted independently, fairly and in accordance with the statutory framework, and we will respect the Committee’s determination. We have consciously sought to maintain a constructive and neutral approach during these proceedings. Whilst colleagues have expressed differing views regarding trade union representation, we have not campaigned either for or against recognition. Instead, we have focused on supporting employees through a period of significant organisational change and on cooperating fully with the CAC process. The recognition application has run alongside the closure and transition arrangements relating to the Inshore Lifeboat Centre, creating understandable uncertainty for many employees. In those circumstances, our principal concern is that colleagues receive clarity as soon as possible so that attention can remain focused on supporting them through the changes ahead. Accordingly, whilst the RNLI fully respects the Committee’s discretion under Schedule A1, we do not invite the Committee to direct a ballot. Rather, we welcome a timely determination through the statutory process and will work constructively with the outcome reached. If recognition is granted, we are committed to engaging professionally and constructively with Unite in the interests of our employees and the charity. The RNLI has never regarded this process as one of winning or losing. Our objective has been to ensure confidence in the integrity of the process and in the legitimacy of the outcome. Whatever determination the Committee reaches, we will respect it and continue to focus on supporting our people during this period of transition.”
5. Considerations
9) The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must then decide if any of the three conditions in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled. If the Panel considers that any of them is fulfilled it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot.
10) As stated in paragraph 5 above, the membership check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 91.49% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union and the Panel is satisfied that this check provided a proper representation of the level of union membership within the bargaining unit. The Employer did not seek to challenge the Union’s position that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.
11) The Panel has considered carefully whether any of the qualifying conditions set out in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled.
12) The first condition is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations. The Panel has not received any evidence that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations and is satisfied that this condition is not fulfilled.
13) The second condition is that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The Panel has no such evidence and the Panel has therefore concluded that this condition does not apply.
14) The third condition is that membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. No such evidence has been produced, and the Panel has therefore concluded that this condition does not apply.
6. Declaration of recognition
15) The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “All staff employed by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the Inshore Lifeboat Centre, Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32 6HB, including apprentices and first-line production managers known as Section Leaders, but excluding all other managers.”
Panel
Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair
Mr Derek Devereux
Ms Joanna Brown
30 June 2026