Government consultation: Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Balloting for Statutory Union Ballots

Publication details

• Publication date: 19 November 2025
• Closing date for responses: 28 January 2026 (11:59pm)
• Link to consultation: Consultation: Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Balloting for Statutory Union Ballots
• Link to draft Code of Practice: Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Balloting for Statutory Union Ballots
• Relevant Bill provisions: Clause 76 (Electronic Balloting)

Purpose of the consultation

The government plans to introduce electronic and workplace balloting for statutory union ballots, alongside existing postal methods. These changes will be delivered through secondary legislation, supported by a statutory Code of Practice. The consultation seeks views on whether the draft Code provides clear and practical guidance to ensure ballots conducted using the new methods remain secure, secret and fair. It does not revisit the policy decision to permit electronic and workplace balloting.

The Code is intended to be the primary practical guide for unions, scrutineers and (in limited respects) employers when running ballots under the new system. It explains how the new methods are expected to work in practice, what standards apply and how each party should fulfil their responsibilities.

Summary of content and scope

The draft Code explains how three new voting methods will operate once authorised. Pure electronic balloting allows both the issue and return of the ballot to take place entirely online, using personal (non-workplace) contact details and a secure voting platform run by an independent scrutineer. Hybrid electronic balloting retains the traditional postal ballot paper but gives voters the choice of returning their vote electronically instead. Workplace balloting is an in-person method conducted at or near the workplace by an independent scrutineer, and will apply only to industrial action ballots and only where the employer gives voluntary consent.

The Code sets out the respective responsibilities of unions, scrutineers, employers and, where relevant, the CAC. It explains how the “responsible person” (normally the union’s General Secretary) should approach the choice of method, and the factors and criteria that must be satisfied before a method can be used. It also includes detailed operational and technical standards for electronic voting, covering cyber security, distribution of voting materials, data integrity, audit logging and contingency planning.

Key proposals or areas for comment

The consultation asks whether the draft Code offers sufficiently clear guidance on the new methods. For electronic balloting, respondents are asked to consider the clarity of the extensive technical requirements, including the standard of encryption, the separation of personal data and voting data, the security of the voting platform, and the use of unique identifiers for voters. Although postal voting remains available as a permitted method, the draft Code makes clear that a purely electronic ballot may proceed without issuing postal papers, provided all eligible voters can still be reached electronically or through a combination of methods.

For hybrid balloting, views are sought on the practicalities of administering both postal and electronic processes in parallel, and on the responsibilities of scrutineers when handling different streams of returned ballots.

Workplace balloting is addressed separately. It applies only to industrial action ballots and requires the employer’s voluntary agreement. The Code sets out expectations around voting locations, neutrality and secure handling of physical ballot papers. Views are invited on whether these safeguards are workable and adequately described. Respondents are also asked to comment on the factors the responsible person should consider when selecting a balloting method and whether the proposed reporting requirements for scrutineers are appropriate.

Practical and policy considerations

The reforms will introduce new operational demands for unions and scrutineers, particularly in meeting the cybersecurity, data integrity and audit standards required for electronic balloting. The need for accurate personal contact information may present practical challenges, and hybrid balloting may add complexity where postal and electronic processes must be aligned.

Employers’ direct responsibilities are limited, but workplace balloting requires careful planning to provide suitable voting facilities that protect neutrality and secrecy. Adjustments to usual site security (for example, avoiding CCTV coverage) may be necessary. As workplace balloting depends on voluntary agreement, employers will need to understand what is expected before consenting.

Selecting a voting method requires balancing security, accessibility and feasibility. Documenting these decisions clearly will be important, particularly if a method is challenged.

Unresolved or omitted issues

The draft Code provides detailed requirements but leaves some areas unclear. The monitoring and enforcement of the electronic balloting standards is not explained beyond scrutineer reporting. The Code does not describe what should happen if unions cannot supply sufficient personal contact information for electronic balloting, or how system failures during a ballot should be managed in practice.

For workplace balloting, the consequences of an employer withdrawing consent late in the process are not explored in detail. Although contingency planning is expected, the practical implications for ballot timings and previously cast votes remain uncertain. The interaction between the new methods, existing statutory ballot requirements and evidential expectations in litigation is not addressed.

Analysis and observations

The draft Code reflects the government’s intention to modernise statutory ballots while ensuring robust standards of security and auditability. This level of prescription may support confidence in the new system but is likely to increase cost and complexity for unions and scrutineers. Pure electronic balloting will require strong data discipline, and the supply of scrutineers capable of meeting the technical requirements may become a limiting factor.

From an employer’s perspective, the principal impact will come from the increased ease and speed with which unions can run industrial action ballots using electronic methods, and from the need to engage carefully with any request for workplace balloting. Employers may wish to develop an internal position in advance on whether they would ever consent to a workplace ballot, who should take that decision, and what practical arrangements they would need to put in place.