Acceptance Decision
Updated 24 July 2025
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
Case Number: TUR1/1480(2025)
24 July 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:
RMT
and
Amulet (Churchill Security Solutions)
1. Introduction
1) RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 8 July 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Amulet (Churchill Security Solutions) (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “Safeguarding Officers employed by Amulet on the Avanti West Coast Contract”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 8 July 2025. The Employer did not submit a response.
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 Alastair Kelly and Mr Steve Gillan. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.
3) The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case. The initial period expired on 22 July 2025. The period was extended until 5 August 2025 in order to allow time for the Panel to consider all the evidence and reach a decision.
2. Issues
4) The Panel is required by the Act to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 8; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42 of Schedule A1 to the Act; and therefore, should be accepted.
3. The Union’s application
5) The Union stated that its initial request was sent to the Employer by email on 23 June 2025. In its request it stated that it was seeking recognition for “ALL AMULET SAFEGUARDING OFFICERS ACROSS the Avanti West Coast Contract” and confirmed it had high levels of membership on this contract. It said it was keen to meet the Employer as soon as possible to discuss recognition and other matters of mutual interest. In its application, the Union stated that it had asked the Employer for a “read” receipt and subsequently received confirmation verifying that the Employer had indeed read the request. The Union stated that the Employer had not submitted a response to its request.
6) On 8 July 2025, the Union submitted an application to the CAC. In its application the Union stated that the Employer had 32 employees in total, all of whom were included in the proposed bargaining unit. Of these 32 workers, 22 were confirmed as Union members. When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated: “Members have joined to achieve recognition for collective bargaining and also following the company proposing some significant changes to hours and rosters. This is evidenced in the rise in membership figures from 10th June when these proposals were made by the company to change their T&C’s”. The Union explained that the reason it selected the proposed bargaining unit was that it was a self-contained group of workers who had joined the Union for collective bargaining purposes.
4. The Employer’s response
7) On 8 July 2025 the CAC sent the Union’s application to the Employer along with a covering letter and an Employer Response Form for completion. In the covering letter from the CAC the Employer was informed that the deadline for the return of the completed form was the close of business on 15 July 2025. No response was received from the Employer by the specified deadline. On 16 July 2025, the CAC wrote again to the Employer noting the absence of a response and enclosing a further copy of the Union’s application and the Employer Response Form. This letter stated that if no response was received by 4:00 p.m. on 17 July 2025, the Panel would proceed to determine the application based on the information available at that time. The Employer once again failed to respond by the stated deadline. In addition, the CAC Case Manager attempted to contact the Employer by telephone on 16 July 2025 but was unable to leave a message. As a follow-up, the Case Manager emailed the Employer on the morning of 17 July 2025, stressing the importance of completing and returning the response form. No reply was received. Subsequently, the Case Manager tried to contact the Employer through the contact facility on the Employer’s website. A representative responded and asked that a formal request be sent to their email address requesting that the Employer contact the CAC.
8) On 18 July 2025, the Case Manager sent an email to the newly-provided email address outlining that multiple previous attempts to contact the Employer by both telephone and email had gone unanswered. Although a “read” receipt confirmed that the email had been received no further communication was received from the Employer.
9) A further email was sent on 22 July 2025 asking the Employer to respond by noon on 23 July 2025. It was made clear to the Employer the importance of completing the CAC’s Response Form by noon on 23 July 2025 and that failure to do so would mean that the Panel would proceed to make its decision on the basis of the evidence available, namely the Union’s application and its supporting documents.
10) No response was received from the Employer by noon on 23 July 2025. The Panel therefore proceeded to deal with the application in the absence of a response from the Employer.
5. Considerations
11) In deciding whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 of this decision are satisfied. In the absence of any information or arguments from the Employer, the Panel has made this assessment on the basis of the information and evidence from the Union.
12) The Panel is satisfied that, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule. It is also satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 and was made in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Schedule.
13) The remaining issue is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met. In accordance with paragraph 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Schedule, the Panel must determine whether members of the Union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, and whether a majority of the workers constituting the Union’s 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)(a)
14) In its application to the CAC, the Union stated that there were 22 Union members in its proposed bargaining unit of 32 workers. The Panel was satisfied that, on the basis of the evidence available, the Union had 22 members out of 32 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. This gives Union membership of 68.75% of the proposed bargaining unit. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the level of Union membership in the bargaining unit does 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)
15) The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the level of union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit in relation to support for collective bargaining. On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a majority of 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.
6. Decision
16) For the reasons given above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.
Panel
Ms Susan Cox, Panel Chair
Mr Alastair Kelly
Mr Steve Gillan
24 July 2025