Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 13 April 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1530(2026)

13 April 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:

BECTU a sector of Prospect

and

The Continuum Group Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         BECTU a sector of Prospect (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 26 February 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by The Continuum Group Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All permanently employed staff who are employed as Storytellers and/or Duty Managers within the Real Mary Kings Close, Edinburgh team”, based at The Real Mary King’s Close, 2 Warriston’s Close, High Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1PG. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 26 February 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 5 March 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 John Rawling and Mr Matt Smith OBE. 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 12 March 2026. The acceptance period was then extended to 9 April 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 9 February 2026. The Union confirmed that no response had been received from the Employer.

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 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 69 and 66 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 39 were Union members. When asked whether the Employer agreed on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit the Union did not respond to this question. 

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, “Bectu is happy to provide the CAC with individual petition forms supporting Bectu recognition completed by a majority of staff within the bargaining unit. These petitions will be supplied to the CAC on a strictly confidential basis.”.

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit as “All the staff within the bargaining unit do the same job (although a few also have duty manager responsibilities). They all work from the same location, and they are all managed as one distinct business unit within the Edinburgh base”. 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 26 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 9 February 2026. The Employer stated that, “The attachment containing the formal request for recognition under Schedule A1 was not opened at the time. Following receipt of the CAC’s correspondence, Mr Nixon reviewed the original email and confirms receipt of the Union’s letter on 9 February 2026. The Employer also stated that it, “Did not respond to the Union’s letter dated 9 February 2026 within the statutory timeframe, as the attachment was not opened at the time of receipt.

12)       The Employer said that it had not received a copy of the application form from the Union and the only correspondence from the Union was the letter of 9 February 2026, which was not opened at the time and the Employer first saw the application form when it was sent by the CAC. ^{[footnote 1]}

13)       The Employer, when asked if it had agreed the bargaining unit with the Union before it had received a copy of the application form from the Union, stated “No”. There was no prior dialogue between the parties about recognition or bargaining unit.

14)       The Employer confirmed that it did not agree with the bargaining unit and confirmed its objections to the proposed unit by stating, that the Union “Proposes that the bargaining unit should be ‘all permanently employed staff who are employed as Storytellers and/or Duty Managers within the Real Mary King’s Close, Edinburgh team. It is not clear from the union’s description who the recognition is supposed to cover. The Edinburgh team comprises: Operational staff, Storytellers and/or Duty Managers on permanent contracts, Storytellers on zero hours contracts. The Employer contends that the bargaining unit selected by the Union is unspecific, too narrow and incompatible with effective management of the team. As at 26 February 2026, the Employer employed 112 workers in total (not 69 as stated in the Union’s application): 84 based in Edinburgh and 28 based at the York Support Office. The 28 York-based workers are employed in Finance, IT, People, Marketing/Sales, Development, and Operations. The Union’s application to the CAC (section 9) states that there are 66 workers in the Bargaining Unit. The Employer seeks information in relation to who the Union has taken into account as this does not accord with the Employer’s numbers. The Employer’s zero-hours contracts are materially identical to its permanent contracts in rates of pay. Holidays and hours vary between the types of contracts. A bargaining unit confined to permanently employed staff would therefore impose an arbitrary demarcation upon a workforce that is, in every material respect, a single, integrated, and interchangeable cohort. Any collective agreement covering only a subset of workers performing identical roles on materially identical terms would be unworkable in practice and incompatible with effective management, producing precisely the kind of small and fragmented unit that Employers wish to avoid”. The Employer continued its objection and finalised by saying it reserved the right to make further detailed submissions on the appropriate bargaining unit at the next stage of the statutory process should the application be accepted.

15)       When asked if, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered no as it was unaware that an application was to be made to the CAC, and accordingly did not approach Acas.

16)       When asked, the Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application the Employer stated no and that its position on the appropriate bargaining unit and the correct workforce figures had already been set out in its response.

17)       When asked to give the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit and the reason for any difference, the Employer stated “As at 26 February 2026 there were 80 workers engaged working as Storytellers and/or Duty Managers at the Real Mary King’s Close (not 66 as stated by the Union), comprising 48 employed with contracted hours and 32 employed on zero-hours contracts. The Employer contends that the CAC ought to consider that the appropriate bargaining unit comprises at least 80 workers as at 26 February, but this bargaining unit is shortly to increase to 106 by 30 March 2026. The Employer requests that the Union be required to provide evidence of its claimed membership figure of 39 members within the proposed unit”.

18)       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.

19)       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, “The Employer has no means of independently verifying the Union’s claim that 39 workers in the proposed bargaining unit are BECTU members. The Employer requests that the Union be required to provide evidence to substantiate this claim”.

20)       The Employer when asked if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition, and to indicate its reasons for taking this view, with any available evidence, the Employer stated that “The Employer does not consider that a majority of workers in the appropriate bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition. If the bargaining unit is determined to include all 106 Storytellers and Duty Managers regardless of contract type (as the Employer contends), the Union’s claimed membership of 39 would represent less than 50% of the unit. The Employer accordingly requests that the CAC require the Union to demonstrate that both the 10% membership threshold and the majority support test are satisfied in respect of the appropriate bargaining unit as determined by the CAC”.

21)       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, “No other applications under Schedule A1”.

5. The check of membership and support

22)       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 11 March 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

23)       The information requested from the Employer was received on 12 March 2026 and from the Union on 11 March 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

24)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 61 workers. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 37 names.

25)       The Union also provided a petition, which contained 40 names/signatures. The petition consisted of each individual signing the petition and had 5 columns asking for Name, Signature, Job Title, Department and Date Signed. The Petition was set out as follows:

“Prospect Bectu Support for Trade Union Recognition

I xxx xxx, the undersigned employee of Mary Kings Close, The Continuum Group Ltd am formally expressing my support for the recognition of the Bectu sector of Prospect Trade Union as our representative for the purposes of collective bargaining on matters including pay, working conditions, and employment terms. We believe that recognition of the Bectu sector of Prospect will contribute positively to our workplace by ensuring fair representation, improving communication between staff and management, and promoting a collaborative working environment. By signing below, I confirm that: I am an employee within the proposed bargaining unit. I support the recognition of Prospect for collective bargaining purposes. I understand that this petition may be used as evidence in a formal application to the employer or the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), if necessary”.

26)       According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 37, a membership level of 60.66%. The check of the petition showed that it had been signed by 40 workers this represented 65.57% of the proposed bargaining unit. 37 signatories were members of the Union and 3, that is 4.92% of the petition signatories, were non-members. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially.

27)       A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 16 March 2026 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

28)       In a letter dated 17 March 2026 the Union stated it, “Would note that with respect to paragraph 36 of the schedule, in my view, the report confirms that Bectu has satisfied the criteria necessary for our application to be considered as admissible. Indeed, I believe that the report adequately demonstrates that Bectu does indeed have sufficient membership and support, 65.57%, to be granted automatic recognition within the Continuum Group in Edinburgh. Looking more generally at the comparisons, I believe there are no great differences between the employers list of staff and Bectu’s proposed bargaining unit. I am aware that a few permanently employed staff left employment at the start of March after we had submitted the initial application however this has not detracted from Bectu’s membership or for support for union recognition.”

29)       In a letter dated 20 March 2026 the Employer stated that it “…………Identified 97 workers employed as Storytellers and/or Duty Managers. On 13 March 2026, we confirmed that 95 workers constituted the bargaining unit, comprising 47 permanently contracted staff, 14 permanent zero-hours contract workers, and 34 fixed-term zero-hours workers (two further workers having deferred their start dates). Our core submission was that the 34 fixed-term zero-hours workers should be included in the bargaining unit. For ease of this letter, we have continued to refer to 34 fixed term zero-hours workers, but a further 4 have been onboarded and so the reality is there are 38 fixed-term zero-hours workers as of 20 March 2026. The Case Manager’s Report of 16 March 2026 disregarded our core submission (that 34 fixed-term zero-hours workers should be included) and determined the bargaining unit at 61 workers. The proposed bargaining unit of 61 workers, drawn exclusively from “permanently employed” staff, excludes approximately half of the workers performing the relevant roles. A bargaining unit drawn on this basis does not reflect the genuine composition of the workforce and is not appropriate for the purposes of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The membership and support figures have been assessed against a bargaining unit of only 61 workers. The Employer’s records identify 95 workers employed as Storytellers and/or Duty Managers. If the bargaining unit reflected the true workforce (all workers performing these roles) the Union could not demonstrate majority support. A petition of 40 individuals out of 95 represents approximately 42%, falling materially short of the majority required under paragraph 36(1)(b) of Schedule A1. The bargaining unit of “permanently employed” workers has therefore been defined to create an artificially favourable numerical position for the Union, rather than to reflect the genuine operational unit. The Panel is invited to scrutinise the numbers on this basis. The Employer further notes its concern that the membership figure of 37 active union members has not been verified by reference to payment of subscription. Without confirmation of active membership status, that figure cannot be considered robust. While there is clear evidence of support for recognition through the petition, union membership levels have not been established with sufficient certainty to justify automatic recognition without a ballot……….”.

7. Considerations

30)       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.

31)       In deciding whether to accept an application the Panel must be satisfied that it is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule states:

6. The request is not valid unless the union (or each of the unions) has a certificate under section 6 that it is independent.

8. Observations

32)       In this case, the Panel notes that the Union’s original request for recognition calls upon the Employer to recognise “BECTU a sector of Prospect”. The request asks the Employer to recognise BECTU and then goes on to state that BECTU holds a certificate of independence. However, having checked the list from the Certification Officer’s list of independent trade unions under ‘B’, there was an absence of BECTU. As BECTU does not hold a certificate of independence, it falls foul of Paragraph 6 of the Schedule, which states that the request is not valid unless the union (or each of the unions) has a certificate under section 6 that it is independent.

33)       The Panel therefore concludes that as the Employer has been asked to recognise “BECTU a sector of Prospect”, a union that does not appear to be in possession of a Certificate of Independence, it must follow that the request is not valid. 

9. Decision

34)       For the reasons given above the Panel is not satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule.  Accordingly, the application is not accepted by the CAC.

Ms Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair

Mr John Rawling

Mr Matt Smith OBE

13 April 2026

---

1. The Union emailed the CAC Case Manager confirming that it had sent a copy of its application to the Employer on 26 February 2026 at 13:15 ↩