Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 2 October 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1491(2025)

1 October 2025

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

Wilson James Limited

1. Introduction

1)         United Voices of the World (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 1 September 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Wilson James Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Employees of Wilson James Limited, excluding management grade and above, contracted to work at The Science Museum, Exhibition Rd, South Kensington,London,SW7 2DD” . The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 1 September 2025. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 5 September 2025 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 Mustafa Faruqi and Mr Andy Peart. 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 11 September 2025. 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 9 October 2025.

3. The Union’s application

5)         In its application the Union said that it had written to the Employer with a formal request for recognition on 18 June 2025. The Union confirmed that the Employer responded on 2 July 2025 stating, stating: “………we have decided that we are not in a position to agree to voluntary recognition with you”. Both the letters from both the Union and the Employer 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”. 

7)         According to the Union, there was over 5000 workers employed by the Employer with 60 of these falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The Union stated that it had 42 members within the proposed bargaining unit. 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 it had a “ 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, of course, provide the list of members to the CAC upon request”.

8)         When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated “Our membership comprises around 70% of the bargaining unit, which is clear evidence of majority support for recognition. There is also no reason to believe that the remaining workers who are not yet members of UVW would not support recognition of UVW. We also have a petition signed by 50 members of the BU confirming support for the request that Wilson James recognises UVW at the Science Museum”.

9)         When asked to give its reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that “The BU has been defined as to ensure compatibility with effective management. Workers in the BU are all security guards who carry out identical, or near identical, roles and who receive the same, or 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 and taking industrial action.” The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union said there had not been a previous application in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and there was no existing recognition agreement that covered any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

4. 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 18 June 2025. The Employer stated that it had declined the Union’s request in an email dated 2 July 2025 by stating “Thank you for your email dated 18 June 2025 and the attached correspondence requesting voluntary recognition of the Science Museum for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect of employees of Wilson James Limited, excluding management grade and above, contracted to work at The Science Museum, Exhibition Rd, South Kensington, London, SW7 2DD Wilson James has formal recognition agreements in place with two independent trade unions across the consortium of museums and have already entered into voluntary recognition process with one of our existing Trade Unions, which together provide established representation across all museums. We are mindful of the importance of maintaining a structured and effective framework for industrial relations and the introduction of an additional trade union would require a broader review of this framework and its practical implication for existing arrangements. Considering this and after careful consideration, we have decided that we are not in a position to agree to voluntary recognition agreement with you”.

12)       When asked to give the date it received a copy of the application form, the Employer stated it had received a copy of the application form from the Union by email on 18 June 2025. The Employer when asked if it agreed with the proposed bargaining unit confirmed that it did not agree on the proposed bargaining unit because “Wilson James contracts with the Consortium of Museums in London for the provision of Security Guards Services 1) the Science Museum, 2) the Natural History Museum and 3) the Victoria & Albert Museum. Wilson James has long standing recognition agreements in place with PCS and the GMB at two of the museums in the consortium. The Natural History Museum has the GMB, and the V&A has PCS. Furthermore, Wilson James entered into discussions for a voluntary recognition agreement for the Science Museum with the GMB. The discussion for expanding recognition with the GMB was held on 6 June 2025”.

13)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered, “No, but we would not object to this”. When asked to state the number of workers employed by the Employer it confirmed “Wilson James contract at the Science Museum-Nos of Employee=84”

14)       When asked whether it agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application the Employer answered, “This was not specified in UVW’s request”. When asked the reasons for any difference, the Employer stated, “N/A”.

15)       The Employer said, “Wilson James is in discussion with GMB for voluntary recognition at the Science Museum and the proposed recognition agreement has been exchanged”. A copy of the  draft agreement was attached to the Employer’s response email dated  5 September 2025.

16)       When asked, Is the other party a Union recognised by the agreement and entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the relevant bargaining unit, the Employer said “Yes”.

17)       When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated, “N/A”. The Employer when asked if it considered that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, also stated stated “N/A”.

18)       When asked whether the application was made by more than one Union and whether they wished to put forward a case that the Unions would not co-operate with each other, the Employer responded as follows: “As declared, Wilson James is in discussion with the GMB for recognition at the Science Museum. We believe that having two recognised unions, at a single site operating over a 24-hour shift along with a relatively small workforce could result in confusion and undermine effective worker representation”.

19)       Finally, the Employer stated “N/A” when asked it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit. Asked 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 answered, “N/A”.

5. Union’s comments on the Employers Response

20)       The Panel Chair, having reviewed the Employer’s response, requested that it be cross copied to the Union and that the Union be invited to provide any further comments. In particular, the Panel Chair was seeking the Union’s views on the Employer’s assertion that discussions were ongoing with the GMB regarding a recognition agreement covering the same bargaining unit. Accordingly, a letter was sent by the CAC to the Union on 8 September 2025 inviting a response.

21)       The Union in a letter dated 11 September 2025 stated “Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the points raised by Wilson James (the Employer) regarding our application for statutory recognition at the Science Museum. We respectfully submit that the Employer’s objections do not provide valid grounds to dispute the proposed bargaining unit (“BU”) and appear to be a transparent attempt to impose a union upon a workforce that has already chosen UVW.

Rebuttal of Employer’s Specific Points

a) Existing Recognition Agreements with PCS and GMB

The Employer cites its existing recognition agreements with PCS (at the V&A) and GMB (at the Natural History Museum) as a reason to dispute our proposed BU at the Science Museum. This argument is without merit. Indeed, it demonstrates only that different unions may be recognised at different museums. Each museum in the consortium is a distinct entity with a distinct workforce. The existence of different recognition agreements at different sites does not preclude statutory recognition for a separate, clearly defined bargaining unit at the Science Museum. Recognition agreements at different sites are common in multi-site operations. Furthermore, the Consortium itself is only due to remain in its present form until March 2027 (see modification notice: link). At any time, the Consortium could dissolve, and individual museums may choose their own contractors. Recognition agreements tied to the Consortium are therefore not a fixed or permanent framework strengthening the case for a site-specific bargaining unit that will remain coherent regardless of future contractual arrangements. 

b) Discussions with GMB for the Science Museum

The Employer’s admission that it entered into discussions with GMB on 6th June 2025 only serves to underscore that no voluntary recognition agreement currently exists for the proposed bargaining unit. On that basis, there is no legitimate barrier to recognising UVW.

Alleged Concerns About Multiple Unions

The Employer’s stated concern that having two unions (e.g., GMB at NHM and UVW at SM) would cause “confusion” and undermine “effective worker representation” is unsubstantiated and disingenuous.

• Workforce Size: The Science Museum’s security workforce is not “relatively small” and is larger than many workforces where statutory recognition has been granted.

• Lack of Precedent for “Confusion”: The Employer already manages recognition agreements with two different unions (PCS at V&A, GMB at NHM) and has never sought to derecognise one to avoid “confusion”. This demonstrates the insincerity of their claim.

• Disregard for Worker Choice: The Employer’s sudden concern for “effective representation” is contradicted by its pursuit of a deal with GMB, a union that has no history, relationship, or mandate from the Science Museum workforce. This action shows their primary goal is not effective representation but control over it.

Demonstrable Majority Support for UVW

UVW has sustained clear and demonstrable majority support amongst the security guards at the Science Museum for a significant period. This support is evidenced by:

• Union Density: a majority of the proposed bargain unit are members of UVW 

• Sustained support over time: Two separate petitions, one year apart (September 2024 and September 2025), have both garnered majority support from the bargaining unit. The stability of this support, despite natural staff turnover, is highly relevant to this application.

• Industrial Action: Members of the BU and the Museum Consortium have taken lawful industrial action through UVW, further demonstrating our mandate.

• Workplace Representatives: We have active and elected workplace representatives on site at the Science Museum. 

The second petition, circulated on 5th September following news of the potential “sweetheart deal” with GMB, has been signed by a huge majority of the guards in under one week confirming that the workforce wants UVW to represent them and explicitly does not want GMB.

Potential for Legal Challenge

Members of the bargaining unit are so indignant at the prospect of a deal being agreed between the Employer and GMB that we have been instructed to explore a legal challenge to it. Under s.146 TULR(C)A 1992, recognising a non-representative union could constitute a detriment to UVW members on the grounds of their trade union membership. This is because they would be denied the ability to bargain collectively through their chosen union, replaced instead by a union with no mandate. The detriment arises because they are members of UVW. The Employer’s attempt to recognise another union is aimed at avoiding engagement with the genuine, majority-supported union. Where the recognised union has no real membership base and another union has demonstrable majority support, the Employer’s true motive would be plain for a tribunal to see: to marginalise the workers’ chosen and genuine representatives.

Communication with the GMB

We have written to GMB (8th September 2025, correspondence attached) urging them to respect this democratic principle and the mandate of the workers and withdraw from talks with the Employer. We await their reply.

Engagement with other unions

This is not the first time the Employer has attempted this strategy. In December 2024, it approached PCS union in a bid to extend its recognition agreement to cover the Science Museum. To its credit, PCS rejected this offer, knowing it was a tactic to exclude UVW. PCS  proposed a joint recognition agreement with UVW, which the Employer was willing to accept despite knowing PCS had no mandate. This history confirms a pattern of behaviour: the Employer is not seeking the most representative union but the most convenient one. It is attempting to choose the union for its workers, a fundamental violation of the principle that this choice belongs to the workforce alone.

History of Engagement: ACAS-Facilitated Talks

Throughout the recent industrial dispute (August 2024 - April 2025), UVW and the Employer participated in numerous talks, both with and without the facilitation of ACAS. A summary of these ACAS-chaired talks is attached for your reference. Further, as recently as July 2025 UVW submitted a petition to the Employer signed by 56 members of the bargain unit demanding a change to the policy on wearing a tie at work. This demonstrates UVW’s role in conducting collective bargaining on day-to-day issues. This history is critically important because it demonstrates that the Employer has historically recognised UVW as the de facto representative of the workforce by engaging with us in substantive talks to resolve the dispute thus accepting that UVW is the body with which to discuss terms and conditions for this bargaining unit.

In summary:

1. The Employer’s objections are factually and logically unsound.

2. UVW has a sustained, demonstrable majority within the proposed bargaining unit.

3. The Employer’s actions demonstrate a pattern of seeking to avoid recognising the union chosen by its employees.

4. The Employer has already de facto recognised UVW as the body with which to discuss terms and conditions for this bargaining unit.

We are happy to provide the names and dates of birth of our members and signatories to the petitions for verification purposes. We trust this clarifies our position and confirms that the application meets all statutory criteria”. 

22)       From the Union’s response, it appeared that there was no agreement currently in place. Therefore, the Panel Chair concluded that there was no need to seek any further comments from the Employer in relation to the Union’s response and agreed to proceed to a membership check.

6. The membership and support check   

23)       To assist 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 unions (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the unions 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. 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 Unions would supply to the Case Manager a list of their paid-up members within that unit including their full names and dates of birth and a copy of a petition in support of recognition. 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 15 September 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

24)       The information from the Union and Employer was received by the CAC on 17 September 2025.

25)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 75 workers and the list of members supplied by the Union contained 30 names. The Union also provided a petition, which contained 123 names/signatures in both paper and electronic formats. The electronic petition was supplied on a spreadsheet containing the following information: Timestamp, Full Name, Which Museum do you work at? Date of Birth and Phone Number. The paper version of the petition comprised of 7 A4 sheets and contained beneath the proposition, a table with four columns headed: Full Name, Which Museum do you work in? Science (SM) National History (NHM) or V&A (V&A)? Date of Birth and Phone number.

The Petition was set out as follows:

Petition for Recognition of UVW Union at the Science Museum:

Respect our Right to Choose

We, the undersigned security guards employed by Wilson James at the Science Museum, support the United Voices of the World (UVW) in its application for trade union recognition, which has already been submitted to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC).

UVW is our union. It is the only union that represents security guards at the Science Museum, and it represents the majority of us. UVW also organises security guards at the V&A Museum and the Natural History Museum, uniting us across institutions in the fight for better pay, conditions, and respect at work.

UVW has consistently stood by us—supporting members in workplace hearings, pursuing legal claims against Wilson James, and leading our long campaign for fairer treatment and improved conditions. Only in UVW have we found the genuine support we need to stand up for ourselves.

UVW does not make backroom deals or enter into “sweetheart” arrangements with employers that sell workers short. 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. We therefore demand that Wilson James and the Science Museum:

1. Respect our democratic right to be represented by the union of our choice, cease all opposition to our democratic choice and recognise UVW as our union—the only union with a mandate to represent us.

2. Engage in good faith with UVW to establish a constructive and effective bargaining relationship. (you do not need to be a member of UVW union to sign this petition).

26)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 28, a membership level of 37.33%. The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 123 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 64.00% of the proposed bargaining unit. 27 of the petition signatories were members of the Union and 21, that is 28.00% of the petition signatories, were non-members. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 18 September 2025 and the parties’ comments invited. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

7. Parties’ comments on the membership check

27)       In an email dated 18 September 2025 the Union stated that “Members of UVW union constitute more than 10 per cent of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit, and a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit favour recognition of UVW union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit”.

28)       In an email dated 1 October 2025,the Employer confirmed that it had reviewed the document and had no comments to make.

8. 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 carefully considered 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 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)

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 Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager described in paragraph 26 above showed that 37.33% 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)

32)       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. 

33)       The Panel considers that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union for collective bargaining (37.33%), as would non-union members who signed the petition (28.00%); giving a total of 65.33%. The Panel can only act on the evidence presented and on the basis of the evidence in this case, 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.

34)       The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

9. Decision

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

Panel

Professor Alan Bogg, Panel Chair

Mr Mustafa Faruqi

Mr Andy Peart

1 October 2025