Validity Decision
Updated 30 July 2026
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-rmt-telent-technology-services-limited-2/validity-decision
Case Number: TUR1/1567(2026)
30 July 2026
CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992
SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION
DECISION ON WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS VALID FOLLOWING
AGREEMENT ON THE BARGAINING UNIT
The Parties:
RMT
and
Telent Technology Services Limited
1. Introduction
1) RMT (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 8 May 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by Telent Technology Services Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising of “ All non-management employees on the Transport for London Communication Assets Maintenance Contract”. The location of the bargaining unit was given as “All locations”. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 8 May 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 15 May 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 Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Richard Fulham and Ms Joanna Brown. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.
3) By its written decision dated 8 June 2026, the Panel accepted the Union’s application. Following that decision, the parties entered into negotiations in an effort to agree the scope of the appropriate bargaining unit. Those negotiations resulted in agreement on a revised bargaining unit comprising: “All Technicians, Engineers, non-people manager Team Leaders, COSS/PWT/Protection Masters and PWT Support”.
2. Issues
4) As the bargaining unit agreed by the parties differed from that proposed by the Union, paragraph 20 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) requires the Panel to decide whether the Union application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 the Schedule. The matters that the Panel must consider are: -
- is there an existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit?
- is there at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of union membership within the new bargaining unit?
- is there a competing application, from another union, where their proposed bargaining unit covers any workers in the new bargaining unit?
- has there been a previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit?
5) In a letter dated 3 July 2026 the Panel invited the parties to make submissions on these matters for consideration by the Panel.
6) In an email dated 8 July 2026 the Union advised that:
- There was no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the new bargaining unit;
- The Union had at least 10% membership within the new bargaining unit.
- That there was no competing application from another union that covered any worker in the new bargaining unit;
- There was no previous application in respect of the new bargaining unit.
7) The Employer did not respond by the deadline set for submitting any comments on these matters for the Panel’s consideration.
3. The membership check
8) To assist in the determination of one of the validity tests specified in the Schedule, namely, whether members of the union constitute at least the required percentage (currently 10%) of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit (paragraph 45(1)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the agreed bargaining unit. The Union provided a list of Union members in the agreed bargaining unit, and a copy of their petition. The information from the Union was received by the CAC on 17 July 2026. The Employer provided a list of workers in the agreed bargaining unit on 16 July 2026. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter from the Case Manager to both parties dated 14 July 2026. The Panel is satisfied that the check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.
9) The Employer’s list identified 61 workers in the agreed bargaining unit. The Union provided a membership list containing 21 names. The Case Manager’s report confirmed that all 21 individuals were union members, representing a membership level of 34.43% within the bargaining unit.
10) A report of the result of the membership check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 17 July 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the result.
4. Summary of the parties’ comments on the membership check
11) In an email dated 22 July 2026, the Union stated that it had no comments to make on the membership report.
12) The Employer did not send any comments by the deadline imposed.
5. Consideration
13) The Panel must decide whether the Union application is valid within the terms of paragraphs 43 to 50 of the Schedule. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered the parties’ submissions and the other evidence before it. The following matters are not disputed:
- there is no existing recognition agreement covering any of the workers within the agreed bargaining unit;
- there is no competing application from another union; and
- there has been no previous application in respect of the agreed bargaining unit.
14) The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the validity criterion contained in paragraphs 45(1) of the Schedule is met.
15) Under paragraph 45(1) of the Schedule an application is invalid unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit. Paragraph 171B states that “the required percentage” currently means 10%.
16) The membership check conducted by the Case Manager outlined above showed that 34.43% of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As previously stated, the Panel is satisfied that the check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the Union constitute at least the required percentage of the workers in the agreed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 45(1) of the Schedule.
6. Decision
17) The decision of the Panel is that the application is valid for the purposes of paragraph 20 of the Schedule and the CAC must proceed with the application.
Panel
Mr Jonathan Gray, Panel Chair
Mr Richard Fulham
Ms Joanna Brown
30 July 2026