Validity 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/validity-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1526(2025)
23 June 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
AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT
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.”
2. Issues
4) As the agreed 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 26 May 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 28 May 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 as has been previously established.”
(c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition?
“Yes – as established by the level of membership and the petition.”
(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) In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 29 May 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 union recognition agreement. The RNLI does have an Information and Consultation of Employees (ICE) arrangement through an employee representative forum known as “Channel”, which operates across the organisation and includes elected representation for employees at the ILC. Employees are currently engaging through both Channel and Unite representatives as part of the ongoing consultation arrangements.”
(b) Is there 10% union membership within the new bargaining unit?
“The RNLI does not hold formal records identifying trade union membership and is therefore unable to independently verify union membership levels within the bargaining unit.”
(c) Are the majority of the workers in the new bargaining unit likely to favour recognition?
“The RNLI is not in a position to comment definitively on the views of employees within the bargaining unit regarding recognition.”
(d) Is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?
“There is no competing union application.”
(e) Has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?
“No”.
3. Membership and support check
7) To assist the determination of two of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely whether 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 45(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the agreed 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 agreed 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 agreed 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) and a copy of a petition signed by workers in favour of recognition. 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 9 June 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties.
8) The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 9 June 2026. The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 10 June 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
9) The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 57 workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 44 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the agreed bargaining unit was 43, a membership level of 91.49%.
10) The Union also provided a copy of a petition which comprised of 4 A4 sheets and contained 50 names/signatures. Each page was set out as follows:
“PETITION IN SUPPORT OF UNION RECOGNITION
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the Inshore Lifeboat Centre at Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32 6HB
Unite the Union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining.”
Beneath the proposition was a table with 4 columns headed: “CLEARLY PRINT NAME”, “JOB TITLE”, “SIGNATURE”, and “DATE”.
At the bottom of each page it stated “This petition and your personal details will be kept confidential by Unite the Union and will be shared with ACAS or the Central Arbitration Committee only, who will use these to confidentially verify the level of support for our collective bargaining application. Your employer will not receive your details or a copy of this petition. The petition will be retained by Unite for the duration of the recognition campaign and any associated issues. Unite the Union’s full up-to-date privacy policy can be found at www.unitetheunion.org/privacypolicy.”
The dates on the petition ranged between 26 May 2026 and 10 June 2026.
11) The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 48 workers in the agreed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 84.21% of the agreed bargaining unit. Of the 48 signatories, 40 were members of the Union (70.16% of the agreed bargaining unit) and 8 were non-members (14.04% of the agreed bargaining unit).
12) A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 11 June 2026, and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 15 June 2026.
4. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check
13) In an email to the Case Manager dated 15 June 2026 the Employer said that in relation to the results of the membership check, the only comment that it wished to make was that it would “support whatever decision the Panel makes.”
14) No comments were received from the Union.
5. Considerations
15) 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.
16) 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)
17) Under paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 7 to 9 above) showed that 91.49% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 8 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, in the absence of any evidence to contrary, members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(a) of the Schedule.
Paragraph 45(b)
18) Under paragraph 45(b) an application is invalid unless the CAC decides that a majority of the workers constituting the agreed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.
19) As well as establishing that 91.49% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were union members, the Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of workers provided by the Employer indicated that 48 petition signatories were identifiable as workers within the bargaining unit, a support level of 84.21%. Of those there were 48 union members (70.16%) and 8 non-members in the bargaining unit (14.04%). Given the level of union membership and support demonstrated by the petition, and in full consideration of the evidence made available, the Panel considers that the majority of the workers would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the test required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule has been met.
6. Decision
20) For the reasons given in paragraphs 16-19 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is not invalid and that the CAC is proceeding with the application.
Panel
Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair
Mr Derek Devereux
Ms Joanna Brown
23 June 2026