Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 13 April 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1529(2026)

13 April 2026

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING:

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

Unite the Union

and

HCS Water Treatment Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 24 February 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by HCS Water Treatment Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “All HCS WATER TREATMENT LTD workers and employees below senior management employed across the Cumbria Consortium Contract”.

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 Susan Cox, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Dr Steve Jary. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

2. Issues on acceptance

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.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

4)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it made its formal request for recognition on 9 February 2026 and had received no response from the Employer. It stated that it had not made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit. It had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties. According to the application, the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 25 and 25 of those workers were in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 16 were Union members. The Union confirmed that the Employer did not agree the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5)         When asked for evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated that there were 16 union members in the proposed bargaining unit who had joined the union during a recognition campaign meeting in November. It had selected the proposed bargaining unit as it best described its membership across the site. The Union confirmed that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer.

6)         Finally, the Union stated that there was no existing recognition agreement which covered any of the workers in the bargaining unit, it held a current certificate of independence, and it had copied the application and supporting documents to the Employer on 9 February 2026.  

4. Summary of the Employer’s response

7)         In its response the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 9 February 2026. It had not responded as the request was not escalated to the appropriate person. It had no record of receiving a copy of the application form of 9 February 2026 and any supporting documents from the Union; as far as it could tell it had only received the application from the CAC.

8)         The Employer said it had not agreed the proposed bargaining unit with the Union. It did not currently have the information required to readily and clearly understand which posts were proposed to be covered by the bargaining unit and which were not. For the same reason, it could not agree the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer stated: “There are 26 employees who work in the Cumbria Consortium contract in total. That consists of 7 managerial roles, 2 of which could be perceived as more senior than others, and then there are 19 non-managerial roles. It is unclear, based on the Union citing 25 employees ‘below senior management’ being in the bargaining unit, who is proposed to be inside and outside of the scope of this”.

9)         The Employer confirmed there was no existing recognition agreement in place covering any of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

10)       When asked if it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer stated: “We are not aware of membership levels and the evidence provided seems highly likely to be accurate. However, for the sake of certainty, we would appreciate confirmation that the evidence provided is a list of 16 HCS employees who have submitted membership applications to Unite on the dates specified (the anonymisation and otherwise the lack of explanation of the context for this document submitted as evidence means this confirmation would be much appreciated).” If numbers were confirmed, then, the Employer stated, “We do not dispute that membership levels of circa 64% suggest majority support for recognition”.

11)       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 “N/A”.

5. Union’s comments on the Employer’s response

12)       The Employer’s response was copied to the Union, and the Union was invited to comment. In particular, the Union was asked to clarify whether it had in fact provided the Employer with a copy of its application. In an email dated 6 March 2026, the Union stated that it had sent the Employer a copy of the application that day and explained that it had inadvertently omitted to do so earlier. In relation to the Employer’s comments on the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Union explained that, based on information provided by its members since November 2025 and further discussions with a group of members on the previous day, it understood that 25 individuals were working on the contract but two were regarded as senior management and would therefore not fall within the proposed bargaining unit. It should, therefore, have stated that there were 23 workers in the unit.

13)       The Panel Chair noted that the Union and the Employer agreed there are two senior management posts involved in the Cumbria Consortium contract that do not fall within the proposed bargaining unit. To ensure that the scope of the bargaining unit was fully clarified before the membership check was undertaken, the Panel Chair asked the parties to confirm and agree the job titles of those two senior management posts. In emails of 11 and 12 March, the parties confirmed that the job titles were Operations Manager and Commercial Manager. The Panel Chair, being satisfied that the scope of the proposed bargaining unit was now clear, instructed the CAC Case Manager to proceed to a membership check.

6. The check of membership and support

14)       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 and support within the proposed bargaining unit. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply the Case Manager with a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would send the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within the unit, including their full names and dates of birth. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the names of the employees and members within the bargaining unit would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 16 March 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

15)       The information requested was received from the Union on 17 March 2026 and from the Employer on 17 March 2026. The list supplied by the Employer contained the names of 23 workers. 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, giving a membership level of 69.57%. A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 19 March 2026 and the parties’ comments were invited.   

7. Parties’ comments on the membership check

16)       In an email dated 19 March 2026 the Union stated, “Given that Unite membership is 69.57% and confirmed by CAC checks of both union/employer lists, Unite believe we should be accepted for recognition”.

17)       In a letter dated 24 March 2026 the Employer stated that it accepted that the 10% membership threshold had been met. It did not accept, however, that the Panel could properly be satisfied that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. It said:

The Panel should not treat membership figures as a proxy for likely majority support for recognition. The statutory scheme expressly distinguishes between union membership and support for collective bargaining. The paragraph 36(1)(b) test asks whether a majority of workers would be likely to favour recognition, rather than whether a majority hold union membership cards. A worker may join a trade union for many reasons, including access to legal representation or personal support in disciplinary proceedings. This does not necessarily mean that they are in favour of the imposition of a statutory collective bargaining obligation on their employer.

Further, the circumstances of membership recruitment are relevant in the Employer’s view. Unite’s own application confirms that all members joined during a recognition campaign meeting on or around 10 November 2025. The membership list submitted to the CAC confirms that all join dates fall within a single seven-day window between 14 and 20 November 2025. These are not long-standing union members with a settled and considered commitment to collective bargaining on this contract. They are workers who were collectively recruited during a single organised campaign event over the course of one week.

The Employer submits that memberships recruited en masse at a single campaign event (where workers may have felt social or peer pressure to join in a group setting) is not a reliable indicator of settled, individual, and considered support for statutory recognition. The Panel should not infer from those circumstances that a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition. This is a matter which would be considered under Paragraph 22(5) and the Employer submits is relevant now to the Panel’s assessment.

Finally, of the 23 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, 7 (some 30%) are not members of Unite. Their views on recognition are entirely unknown and cannot be assumed to favour it. The Panel cannot safely infer that a majority of all 23 workers would be likely to favour recognition when nearly a third of the unit have chosen not to join the Union at all.

8. Considerations

18)       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 submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

19)       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 Panel notes the Employer’s position that the application should not be accepted because it was not copied to the Employer when it was presented to the CAC. There is nothing, however, in paragraph 34 that specifies when the Union must satisfy the requirement to copy its application to the Employer. The Panel is satisfied that the requirement is met if the Union has copied its application to the Employer by the time the CAC has to adjudicate upon the issue of admissibility, and in this case it has.

20) 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)

21)       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 paragraphs 14 and 15 above showed that 69.57% 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 therefore finds 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)

22)       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.

23)       The membership check confirmed that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit (69.57%) are members of the Union. The Panel notes the Employer’s comments on this issue but considers that, in the absence of clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, it is entitled to assume that the members of a Union are likely to favour recognition of their Union to conduct collective bargaining with their Employer on their behalf. This is particularly so in this case, given that the 16 members in the proposed bargaining unit joined the Union during a recognition campaign meeting. Indeed, the Employer itself initially accepted, in its response to the application for recognition, that membership levels of around 64% would suggest majority support for recognition.

24)       On the evidence before it, the Panel is satisfied 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 admissibility test is also met.

9. Conclusion

25) In conclusion, the CAC accepts the Union’s application for recognition.

Panel

Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Dr Steve Jary

13 April 2026