Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 5 March 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1524(2026)

04 March 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:

United Voices of the World

and

Solace Women’s Aid

1. Introduction

1)         United Voices of the World (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 4 February 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Solace Women’s Aid (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “All members of staff of the Tower Hamlets SASS team”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 4 February 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 11 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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham and Mr Steve Gillan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues

3)         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.

4)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 18 February 2026. The acceptance period was then extended to 18 March 2026 to allow a membership check to be conducted and for the parties to comment on the results before the Panel arrived at a decision.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 14th January 2025, and again on 16th July 2025. In an email dated 16 July 2025, the Employer said it was willing to review a draft voluntary recognition agreement and would contact ACAS to facilitate a meeting. A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s response to that request were attached to the application.

6)         When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, “N/a”. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had 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 306 and 14 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 10 were Union members. The Union did not respond when asked whether it agreed with the Employer on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit

8)         When called upon 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, “As permitted by the guidance notes we decline to disclose the names of our members to the employer for purposes of confidentiality and to protect our members from being victimised. We will happily provide the list of members to the CAC upon request. Our membership comprises 71% of the BU, which is clear evidence of majority support for recognition. There is also no reason to believe that the remaining workers would not support recognition of UVW. We also have a petition signed by the vast majority of the BU confirming support for recognition”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit as “The BU has been defined as to ensure compatibility with effective management. Most workers in the BU carry out near identical roles and receive broadly the same terms and conditions of employment. The employer has already engaged in ACAS talks with UVW in respect of the BU and members of the BU have already joined together in a concerted industrial dispute for better terms, including a vote for industrial action”. The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence, and it confirmed that it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 4 February 2026.  

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on, 14 January 2025 and then a further request was received on 16 July 2025. The Employer informed the Union that it was willing to discuss the terms of a voluntary recognition agreement, and these discussions continued until 4 February 2026, when the Union submitted its application to the CAC.

12)       The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Unions application on 4 February 2026. The Employer stated that, prior to receiving a copy of the application form, it had agreed to the bargaining unit with the Union. It confirmed that it agreed with the proposed bargaining unit, although it noted that the number of workers required clarification. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Unions request, it had proposed that Acas be requested to assist.

13)       The Employer when asked if it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the union’s application said “No”

14)       When asked to give the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference, the Employer stated “There are currently 11 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, soon to be reducing to 10 following a resignation of a team member who leaves on 18 February 2026. The roles that we consider to be part of this team are: Floating Housing Support Worker x 1, Floating Support Worker x 1, Housing IDVA x 1, IDVA x 4, Senior IDVA x 1, MASH IDVA x 1, Triage and Assessment Worker x 1 and DWP IDVA x 1”.

15)       When asked to confirm if there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer confirmed there was no existing recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

16)       The Employer, when asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, and to indicate its reasons for disagreeing, with any available evidence, stated, “We are aware that two of the Union’s members have recently left Solace, and another is due to leave this month”.

17)       The Employer, when asked if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, to indicate its reasons for taking this view, with any available evidence. The Employer in its response stated, “Solace does not believe the membership as stated is accurate given that the union states 14 staff members within the unit, but Solace counts that there are 10. As mentioned in the covering letter, Solace has knowledge of intimidating behaviour toward non UVW members previously being pressured to join and believes members of UVW may have become discontented with UVW’s conduct and may not actually want to be represented by them. UVW have been so assertive within the bargaining unit that it seems more than likely that those who have not joined would also choose not to be represented by UVW if given the choice”.

18)       Finally, when asked on whether it had received any other applications under the Schedule for recognition in respect of any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Employer stated “N/A”.

5. The check of membership and support

19)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, (1) whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the Union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and (2) 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 and support 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, and a copy of the petition in support of recognition mentioned in its application.  It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the names of the employees and members within the bargaining unit and the petition signatories would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 17 February 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

20)       The information requested from the Employer was received on 18 February 2026 and from the Union on 23 February 2026.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

21)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 11 workers. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 9 names.

22)       The Union also provided a petition, which contained 11 names/signatures. The petition consisted of columns with the headings showing: Start time, Completion time, Email, Full Name, Job Title, Date of Birth and Phone number: The Petition was set out as follows:

“We, the undersigned IDVA workers of the Tower Hamlets SASS team, employed by Solace Women’s Aid, support United Voices of the World (UVW) in its application for trade union recognition with the CAC.

UVW is our union. It has consistently stood by us—supporting members in workplace hearings, and leading successful campaigns. UVW is a democratic, member-led union where our voices, our needs, and our collective power always come first. Our officials are accountable to us, our campaigns are led by us, and our community is built on solidarity.

We demand Solace respect our democratic right to be represented by the union of our choice, recognise UVW union, and engage in good faith with us to establish a constructive and effective bargaining relationship. (you do not need to be a member of UVW union to sign this petition) When you submit this form, it will not automatically collect your details like name and email address unless you provide it yourself”.

23)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 8, a membership level of 72.73%. The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 11 people. This represented 90.91% of the proposed bargaining unit. Eight signatories were members of the Union and two, that is 18.18% of the petition signatories, were non-members. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially.

24)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 23 February 2026 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

25)       In an email dated 25 February 2026 the Employer stated, “We have noted the numbers provided by the union in respect of membership and the petition of the wider members of the bargaining unit.  We have no further comments to be noted at this time, on the basis that the exact number of workers in the bargaining unit will be confirmed at a later stage.”.

26)       In a letter dated 26 February 2026 the Union stated, “We are unable to account for the difference in numbers in the bargaining unit. We are also unable to account for the union member not appearing on the employer’s list. As for the individual on our petition list, that was not found on the employer’s list, we understand that one of the workers, who signed the petition in support, has since ceased working at Solace. I have also realised I omitted a member in error from our membership list. If you would like me to send across their details or anything else that is required to rectify this, please let me know. Our further comments on the membership check are as follows:

Union membership within the proposed bargaining unit substantially exceeds the statutory requirement that membership constitutes at least 10 per cent of the workers within the bargaining unit. The Union’s membership as per the report currently stands at 72.73 percent of the relevant bargaining unit. With the addition of our member omitted in error this would rise to 81.82%. Further, the Union submits that a majority of workers within the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of UVW as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. This is demonstrated not only by the Union’s membership density but also by the level of support evidenced by workers within the bargaining unit, including non-members, who have signed a petition expressing their support for recognition. In light of the above, the Union respectfully invites the CAC to accept the application”.

7. Considerations

27)       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 carefully considered the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

28)       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 12. 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)

29)       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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 23 above showed that 72.73% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the arrangements agreed 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)

30)       The test in paragraph 36(1)(b) is whether 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 Case Manager’s check of the Union’s petition against the list of 11 workers provided by the Employer indicated that eight of the petition signatories were workers from within the proposed bargaining unit, a support level of 72.73%. The petition was signed by two non-members amounting to 18.18% of the total. The wording on the petition is set out in paragraph 22 above. The Panel believes the proposition in the petition is clear and unambiguous, referring to the specified Union being formally recognised for collective bargaining purposes, and would leave the signatory in no doubt what they were being asked to support.

31)       In the proposed bargaining unit, 72.73% of workers were union members, whilst 90.91% signed the union’s petition supporting recognition, including 18.18% of the workers who were not members of the Union. On the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that 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 and accordingly, this test is also met.

8. Decision

32)       For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Richard Fulham

Mr Steve Gillan

04 March 2026