Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 24 April 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1532(2026)

27 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:

RMT

and

Bellrock Property & Facilities Management Limited

1. Introduction

1)         RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 2 March 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Bellrock Property & Facilities Management Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “All Senior Duty Control Managers, Duty Control Managers, maintenance staff and administrative staff working for Bellrock at the Luton DART” based at Luton DART (including Luton Airport Parkway and Luton Airport). The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 2 March 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 11 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 Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alastair Kelly 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 16 March 2026. The acceptance period was then extended to 6 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 13 February 2026. The Employer’s response was received on 16 February 2026 stating that “Bellrock does not recognise trade unions. Our employees are welcome to join trade unions should they wish, however we do not recognise trade unions directly”.

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, “Yes - an original application was submitted to the CAC on Thursday 19th February. Following advice from the CAC that ‘the first period’ had not yet expired and would do so on Friday 27th February, we voluntarily withdrew the application and communicated this to the employer”. 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 1311 and 9 of the workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 5 were Union members. When asked whether the Employer agreed with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Union stated that it did not.

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, “RMT has majority of employees as members in the proposed bargaining unit”.           

9)         The Union stated it had selected the proposed bargaining unit as, “These are the Bellrock non-management employees who are specifically working on the Bellrock Luton DART facilities management contract. This group of workers form a natural self-contained bargaining unit within the employer e.g. one single line manager”. 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 2 March 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 13 February 2026. The Employer stated that in its response it sent an email to the Union on 16 February 2026 stating, “As an employer, Bellrock does not recognise trade unions. Our employees are welcome to join trade unions should they wish, however we do not recognise trade unions directly”.

12)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form from the Union 19 February 2026. 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, it stated “No”

13)       The Employer confirmed that it did not agree with the bargaining unit and confirmed its objections to the proposed unit by stating, that “8 – 1 person has resigned”. The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas be requested to assist.

14)       In answer to the question whether it agreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as defined in the Union’s application, the Employer stated ‘no’, and the reason for any difference was that one person had resigned.

15)       Finally, when asked, the Employer confirmed there was no existing recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

16)       Finally, the Employer gave no answer when 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.

5. The check of membership and support

17)       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 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. 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. 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 13 March 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

18)       The information requested from the Employer was received on 17 March 2026 and from the Union on 16 March 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

19)       The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 9 workers. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 5 names. According to the Case Manager’s report the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 5, a membership level of 55.56%. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 17 March 2026 and the parties’ comments invited.

6. Parties’ comments on the membership check

20)       Neither party provided comments by the deadline set.

7. Considerations

21)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 3 above are satisfied. The Panel has carefully considered the documentation provided by both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

22)       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)

23)       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 19 above showed that 55.56% 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)

24)       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.

25)       The Panel notes from the membership check that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (55.56%) are members of the Union. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that members of the Union would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining with the Employer on their behalf. 

26)       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

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

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Mr Alastair Kelly

Mr Andy Peart

27 March 2026