Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 19 March 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1521(2026)

18 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

WGC Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         United Voices of the World (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 29 January 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by WGC Ltd (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “employees of WGC Ltd who work within the housekeeping department who work at London Canary Wharf East, 5 Fairmont Ave, London, E14 9JB.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Radisson Blu Hotel, London Canary Wharf East, 5 Fairmont Ave, London E14 9JB.” The application was received by the CAC on 29 January 2026 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 30 January 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 5 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 Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Mustafa Faruqi and Mr Andy Peart. 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 12 February 2026. The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 18 March 2026.

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 19 December 2025. The Employer responded by e-mail dated 6 January 2026 in which it stated that, “After careful consideration, WGC has decided not to grant voluntary recognition at this time.” A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s e-mail dated 6 January 2026 were attached to the Union’s 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 “No”. 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 5,226 (as of 2024 accounts). The Union stated that there were 22 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 17 were members of the Union. When asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said that as permitted by the guidance notes it declined to disclose the names of its members to the Employer for purposes of confidentiality and that it was however happy to provide membership data to the CAC upon request. The Union said that its membership comprised 77% of the bargaining unit, and that this provided clear evidence of majority support for recognition. The Union maintained that there was no reason to believe that the remaining workers would not support recognition of UVW. The Union said that it also had a petition signed by the vast majority of the bargaining unit “confirming support for the request that WGC Ltd recognise UVW.”       

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was to ensure compatibility with effective management. The workers in the proposed bargaining unit worked as one team. They were scheduled on one rota and carried out identical or near identical roles and received the same or broadly the same terms and conditions of employment. The Union explained that the Employer had already engaged in talks with UVW in respect of the bargaining unit regarding requested changes to address concerns at the workplace, and that the Employer had acted upon these in respect of the bargaining unit. The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware that 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 29 January 2026. 

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 19 December 2025. The Employer said that it had acknowledged receipt of the Union’s request and further responded by e-mail dated 6 January 2026 to confirm that “voluntary recognition would not be granted at this time, and that WGC would engage with any statutory process in accordance with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.” A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s response of 6 January 2026 were attached to the Employer’s response.

11)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 29 January 2026. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit as it believed the proposed bargaining unit was artificially narrow and fragmented and did not reflect how WGC organised, managed and deployed labour across its Radisson operations. The Employer explained why it believed the more appropriate was one that comprised the housekeeping workforce across all Radisson Blu hotels operated by WGC in London. 

12)       When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”, and further added that it remained open to engaging with Acas at any stage to support constructive dialogue and resolution.

13)    The Employer said that it disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application. The Employer said that Union’s figures related only to one hotel and that the total number of housekeeping employees who worked across all nine Radisson Blu hotels operated by WGC in London was approximately 183. The Employer further re-iterated its position that the wider group represented the appropriate bargaining unit.

14)       The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

15)       The Employer said that it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit as it believed the Union’s claimed support was confined to the Radisson Blue Euston Square site. The Employer explained that across the wider Radisson London housekeeping workforce (approximately 183 employees across nine hotels), WGC had no evidence that a majority of workers wished to be represented by the Union. Furthermore, the Union had not provided estimated membership for the appropriate bargaining unit to support its assertion that it met the required threshold.

16)       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 reiterated that it had no evidence that a majority of the wider housekeeping workforce across all Radisson hotels in London supported recognition.

17)       Finally, the Employer 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 any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. The membership and support check

18)       To assist in 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 and of the Union’s petition. 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 dates of birth) and a copy of its petition.  It was explicitly agreed with both 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 20 February 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

19)       The information requested from both parties was received by the CAC on 20 February 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

20)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 22 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 17 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 16, a membership level of 72.73%. 

21)       The Union also provided the results of an electronic petition. The Union explained that the petition was carried out using Microsoft Forms. The Union provided a screenshot of the petition that workers were able to complete, and the petition was set out as follows:

Radisson Blu Canary Wharf Recognition Petition

“I, the undersigned, employed by WGC Ltd at Radisson Blu Hotel, London Canary Wharf East, 5 Fairmont Ave, London, EH14 9JB, ask that the United Voices of the World union be recognised as being entitled to conduct collective bargaining on my behalf.

United Voices of the World union has consistently stood by my colleagues and I. It 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.

I urge WGC Ltd to respect our democratic right to be represented by the union of our choice, recognise United Voices of the World union, and engage in good faith with them to establish a constructive and effective bargaining relationship.

When you submit this form, it will not automatically collect your details like name and email address unless you provide it yourself.

*Required

1.Full Name

2.Job Title

3.Date of Birth”

22)       The results of the petition were set out within a spreadsheet, which contained the following headings, “ID”, “Start Time”, “Completion Time”, “Email”, “Full Name”, “Job Title”, and “Date of Birth”. The dates given for the Start Time/Completion Time ranged between 14 January 2026 and 30 January 2026. 

23)       The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 16 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 72.73% of the proposed bargaining unit.  All 16 signatories were members of the Union (72.73% of the bargaining unit).   

24)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 25 February 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by the close of business on 2 March 2026.

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

25)       In an email to the CAC dated 2 March 2026 the Union stated that in regard to the level of union membership, it had substantially exceeded the statutory requirement that membership constitutes at least 10 per cent of the workers within its proposed bargaining unit.

26)       The Union further stated that both the Union’s membership density and the level of support evidenced by workers within the bargaining unit, including non-members, who had signed a petition expressing their support for recognition demonstrated that a majority of the workers within the bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

27)       In an e-mail to the CAC dated 2 March 2026 the Employer said that it did not dispute the numbers provided by the CAC but it could not comment on the accuracy of the information provided by the Union as it had not had sight of the granular data.

28)       The Employer also submitted a further detailed argument on why it believed that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was unsuitable, which will if necessary be considered by the Panel at a later stage of the process.

7. Considerations

29)       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.

30)       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 issue for the Panel to decide is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.   

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

31)       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. 

32)       The Panel is satisfied that the check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 - 20 above), which showed that 72.73% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union and which the Employer did not contest, 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)

33)       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.

34)       As well as establishing that 72.73% 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 16 petition signatories were identifiable as workers within the bargaining unit, a support level of 72.73%. Of those 16 signatories all were members of the Union. 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.

8. Decision

35)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 30 - 34 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Ms Naeema Choudry, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi  

Mr Andy Peart

18 March 2026