Recognition Decision
Updated 24 June 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-united-voices-of-the-world-wgc-ltd-2/recognition-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1522(2026)
23 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:
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 Radisson Blu Hotel, London Euston Square,130 Tottenham Ct Rd, London W1T 5AY.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Radisson Blu Hotel, London Euston Square, 130 Tottenham Ct Rd, London W1T 5AY.” 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 Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Martin Kirke and Mr Nick Childs. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.
3) By a decision dated 5 March 2026 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. No agreement was reached between the parties as to the appropriate bargaining unit. Following a hearing held on 8 May 2026 the Panel decided, by a decision dated 28 May 2026, that the appropriate bargaining unit was “employees of WGC Ltd who work within the housekeeping department who work at Radisson Blu Hotel, London Euston Square,130 Tottenham Ct Rd, London W1T 5AY”. As the appropriate bargaining unit determined by the Panel was the same as that proposed by the Union in its application, the Panel proceeded to the next stage.
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 13 February 2026. This check showed that 75.76% of the workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union. For the reasons set out in paragraph 19 of its decision dated 5 March 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 28 May 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 2 June 2026, stated that it did claim to have majority membership within the bargaining unit. The Union explained that based on its membership data, it had 85% density of members in the bargaining unit (28 members out of 33 workers). It was the Union’s view that “based on this clear mandate from our members”, in this instance, it was not necessary to hold 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 11 June 2026 the CAC copied the Union’s e-mail of 2 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 11 June 2026 the Employer said that it had considered the Union’s claim and the qualifying conditions and confirmed that it did not wish to make submissions challenging the Union’s claim to majority membership, nor invoke any of the three qualifying conditions in paragraph 22(4). The Employer further stated that it looked forward to receiving the Panel’s determination on recognition and to engaging constructively with the procedural steps that followed.
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 75.76% 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 Union, in its e-mail dated 2 June 2026, stated that membership had further risen to 85%. 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 “employees of WGC Ltd who work within the housekeeping department who work at Radisson Blu Hotel, London Euston Square,130 Tottenham Ct Rd, London W1T 5AY.”
Panel
Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair
Mr Martin Kirke
Mr Nick Childs
23 June 2026