Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 26 March 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1526(2026)

23 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:

Unite the Union

and

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 5 February 2026 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “All permanent staff employed by The Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the Inshore Lifeboat Centre at Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32 6HB excluding senior managers and production managers.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Inshore Lifeboat Centre at Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32 6HB.” The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 5 February 2026. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 12 February 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 Mrs Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Derek Devereux and Ms Joanna Brown. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 19 February 2026. The acceptance period was extended to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 23 March 2026.

2. Issues

4)         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

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had sent its request for recognition to the Employer on 7 January 2026. The Employer had responded by letter of 15 January 2026, in which it rejected the Union’s request. A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s e-letter of 15 January 2026 were attached to the Union’s application. 

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 “No”. 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 1859. The Union stated that there were 60 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 39 were members of the Union. When asked to provide evidence that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said that it had 35 members, and that it also had 49 signatures on a petition in support of collective bargaining.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because it was a specific work site with its own cohort of employees who performed specialised manufacturing, maintenance and technical roles (boatbuilders, fitters, electricians, apprentices, stores and office staff) focused on inshore lifeboats and rescue boats.  Those workers also shared common work functions, terms and conditions, and operated as a self-contained team within the RNLI rather than being dispersed across other RNLI operations.  The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware that covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 19 January 2026^{[footnote 1]}. 

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10)       In response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 7 January 2026. The Employer said that the request was declined on the basis that it had an existing Information and Consultation of Employees (I&C) agreement under which the channel employee consultation operated. A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s letter of 7 January 2026 were attached to its response.

11)       The Employer said that it had received a copy of the application form and supporting documents from the Union on 5 February 2026. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit for the following reasons:

• RNLI had an existing I&C agreement in place under which a Channel employee consultation forum operated.  This agreement applied across RNLI and included employees at the Inshore Lifeboat Centre (ILC). It was accepted that the existence of an ICE agreement did not itself preclude statutory trade union recognition.

• The proposed bargaining unit excluded Senior Managers and Production Managers despite those roles being affected by the same closure of the ILC. RNLI considered that all affected employees should be able to have their collective views represented within a consistent framework.

• The petition referenced in the application was circulated during a period in which there was uncertainty among some employees regarding whether RNLI had responded to the Union’s request for recognition within the statutory timeframe. RNLI had responded within the required timeframe. RNLI could not determine whether this uncertainty affected individual decisions but noted the timing in relation to the petition.

12)       When asked whether following receipt of the Union’s request it had proposed that Acas should be requested to assist, the Employer answered “No”.  

13)    The Employer said that it disagreed with the number of workers in the bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application. The Employer said that the total number of employees as of January 2026, was 69. The Employer said that the application excluded Senior Managers and Production Managers and referred to permanent employees only. The Employer said that on this basis it estimated that the proposed bargaining unit would comprise either 51 permanent employees, or 57 employees if apprentices were included. The Employer added that it had noted that apprentices were engaged under apprentice worker agreements and that they were not permanent employees.  The Employer was also unclear whether the proposed bargaining unit included non production roles such as administrators, store employees, and yard operatives. The Employer explained that an employee summary by role had been provided as an attachment to its response to assist the Panel.

14)       When asked whether there was an existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered “Yes”. The Employer explained that the agreement came into effect on 30 October 2023. The agreement was in writing and a copy was attached to its response. The agreement was with the RNLI’s recognised employee consultation forum Channel. This was the recognised body for redundancy and TUPE transfers. The ICE agreement did not cover pay, hours, or holidays, and it was not a union. The Employer said that it was therefore not a pre-existing bargaining agreement under Schedule A1.

15)       The Employer said that it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit as it had not seen any evidence of the membership. The Employer further said that due to the unclear bargaining unit it was possible that union members were being included who were not part of the bargaining unit.

16)       When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer made the following points:

• During the individual consultation meetings in relation to the proposed closure of the ILC in Q4 2027, no employee had requested trade union representation as a companion. One employee requested to be accompanied by a workplace colleague.

• The majority of employees had elected to be accompanied by a channel representative. No employee had raised a request for trade union recognition during the individual consultation meetings held to date.

• At least one employee had stated during consultation that they believed their response to the petition may have been influenced by an understanding that RNLI had not responded to the Union’s request for recognition within the required timeframe.

• The Employer believed that this perception arose from a misunderstanding regarding the statutory response period, specifically the distinction between calendar days and working days and the use of the date of the withdrawn letter. The Employer said that it had responded to the request within the statutory timeframe. The Employer could not determine whether this misunderstanding affected individual decisions. It did however coincide with the period during which the petition was circulated.

• The Employer further explained the role and the scope of the Channel Employee Consultation Forum.

17)       Finally, the Employer was not aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, nor had it received any other applications in respect of any workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. Additional comments from the parties

18)       On 13 February 2026 the Employer’s Response was copied to the Union and its comments invited. On 18 February 2026 the Union submitted its comments in which it maintained that the existence of the ICE committee or staff forum could not operate as a bar to statutory recognition, as the body referenced by the Employer did not have authority to negotiate pay, terms and conditions, or other core matters falling within collective bargaining and that its function was consultative only.

19)       The Union believed that its level of support for recognition was clear and substantial.  The Union said that the Employer’s reference to the ongoing redundancy consultation affecting senior and production managers was not relevant to the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. The Union had deliberately excluded those managers because they exercised managerial authority, including responsibility for discipline and the implementation of management decisions. Including them would create a clear conflict of interest and would be inconsistent with established CAC practice when defining bargaining units. The fact that some managers were currently subject to consultation did not alter the nature of their roles or remove that conflict.

20)       The Union explained that it was not proposing to exclude any category of worker other than senior and production managers. The proposed bargaining unit included apprentices and non-operational staff. In relation to apprentices, they were employees and therefore were included within the proposed bargaining unit, unless there was a clear and objective reason to exclude them.

21)       In response to the Employer’s assumption that staff did not want collective bargaining because they attended consultations with a staff forum representative, the Union considered that these were entirely separate processes. Attendance at a consultation meeting did not amount to opposition to collective bargaining. Consultation was a management-led process in which the Employer retained the final decision. Collective bargaining, by contrast, was a structured process of negotiation between an employer and an independent trade union with the aim of reaching agreement on pay, terms and conditions.

22)       The Union said that it had explained to its members that individual consultation meetings were not negotiations and did not replace the need for collective representation, and the Union had not therefore provided representation for consultation meetings.  The fact that employees have engaged in consultation when invited to do so could not reasonably be interpreted as evidence that they did not support collective bargaining. The Union maintained that the clearest indication of employees’ wishes was the petition signed by 50 staff and the significant level of Unite membership within the proposed bargaining unit.

6. The membership and support check

23)       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 within the proposed bargaining unit and of the Union’s petition.  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 dates of birth) and a copy of its petition.  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 25 February 2026 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

24)       The information requested from the Union was received by the CAC on 26 February 2026, and from the Employer on 27 February 2026. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

25)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 56 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The list of members supplied by the Union contained 38 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 34, a membership level of 60.71%. 

26)       The Union also provided a petition, which comprised of 4 A4 sheets and contained 50 names/signatures. Each page was set out as follows:

“PETITION IN SUPPORT OF UNION RECOGNITION

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the Inshore Lifeboat Centre at Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32 6HB

Unite the Union is asking your employer to recognise it for collective bargaining. We have to show ACAS or the Central Arbitration Committee that a majority of workers favour our application. If you want your employer to recognise Unite for collective bargaining, please sign the petition.  I support recognition of Unite as entitled to conduct collective bargaining.”

Beneath the proposition was a table with 4 columns headed: “CLEARLY PRINT NAME”, “JOB TITLE”, “SIGNATURE”, and “DATE”. 

At the bottom of each page it stated “This petition and your personal details will be kept confidential by Unite the Union and will be shared with ACAS or the Central Arbitration Committee only, who will use these to confidentially verify the level of support for our collective bargaining application. Your employer will not receive your details or a copy of this petition. The petition will be retained by Unite for the duration of the recognition campaign and any associated issues. Unite the Union’s full up-to-date privacy policy can be found at www.unitetheunion.org/privacypolicy.”

The dates on the petition ranged between 14 January 2026 and 19 January 2026.

27)       The check of the Union’s petition showed that it had been signed by 46 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure which represents 82.14%% of the proposed bargaining unit.  Of the 46 signatories, 34 were members of the Union (60.71% of the bargaining unit) and 12 were non-members (21.43% of the bargaining unit). 

28)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 5 March 2026 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check, by the close of business on 9 March 2026.

7. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

29)       In a letter to the CAC dated 9 March 2026 the Employer stated that the only point that it wished to make was in relation to the proposed bargaining unit. The Union had previously stated that they had excluded those that “exercise managerial authority, including responsibility for discipline.” The Employer explained that on that basis, the information that it had provided to the CAC excluded Section Leaders as they were responsible for discipline and the implementation of management decisions. The Employer clarified that it did however wish for all employees to be part of the bargaining unit, which included the Section Leader roles as well as all senior management roles. If the CAC was minded to exclude senior managers from the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it would suggest that only the production Operations Manager and Business Operations manager were excluded

30)    No comments were received from the Union.  

8. Considerations

31)       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.

32)       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 comments in its response to the application in which it had stated that there was an existing recognition agreement in force covering workers in the bargaining unit in the form of its ICE agreement, of which a copy was and attached to its response. However, the Employer itself has acknowledged that it is not an existing collective bargaining agreement under the Schedule.  The Panel has therefore concluded that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel is not satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the proposed bargaining unit. The application is not, therefore, rendered inadmissible by the provision in paragraph 35 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.

33)       The remaining issue for the Panel to decide is whether the admissibility criteria set out in paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule are met.   

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

34)       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 proposed bargaining unit. The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 23 - 25 above) showed that 60.71% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. 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)

35)       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. For the reasons given in paragraph 27 above the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 60.71%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case.

36)        The Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 82.14% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (46 out of 56 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraphs 26 - 27 above). Of those who had signed the petition 34 were Union members (21.43% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 12 were non-members (21.43% of the proposed bargaining unit).

37)     The Panel notes the Employer’s comments that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was unsuitable as it had omitted certain roles. However, this is a matter that will if necessary be considered by the Panel at a later stage of the process.

38)       On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, 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. 

9. Decision

39.       For the reasons given in paragraphs 32 - 38 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Laura Prince K.C., Panel Chair  

Mr Derek Devereux  

Ms Joanna Brown

23 March 2026

---

1. See however paragraph 11. ↩