Government consultation: Implementing the Employment Rights Bill’s provisions on trade union access to workplaces

Publication details

• Publication date: 23 October 2025
• Closing date for responses: 18 December 2025 (11:59pm)
• Link to consultation: Make Work Pay: trade union right of access
• Relevant Bill provisions: Clause 63 (Right of trade unions to access workplaces)

Purpose of the consultation

The consultation seeks views on how the new statutory right for trade unions to access workplaces should operate in practice. It will inform secondary legislation under clause 63 of the Employment Rights Bill and a new statutory Code of Practice. The right will enable unions to request physical and digital access to meet, support, represent and recruit workers, and to facilitate collective bargaining.

Summary of content and scope

The consultation focuses on the practical operation of the new access framework and how the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) will administer and enforce it.

It covers three main areas:

• Access requests and negotiations: How unions apply for access, what information requests and employer responses must contain, the time limits for negotiation, and when either party can refer a dispute to the CAC.
• CAC determinations: The principles the CAC must apply when deciding whether access should be granted, on what terms, and in what circumstances it can or should be refused.
• Fines and enforcement: Proposals for maximum penalties for non-compliance and the factors the CAC should consider when setting fines.

The consultation does not include the forthcoming Code of Practice on trade union access, which will follow in spring 2026, or detailed transitional arrangements.

Key proposals or areas for comment

Employers would have a right to reject a union’s access request, in whole or in part, within five working days. A further 15 working days would be allowed for negotiation before either party could refer the matter to the CAC, which would make a binding decision.

Two categories of refusal are proposed:

• Mandatory refusal, where access must not be granted (for example, on national security grounds or where the employer has fewer than 21 workers).
• Discretionary refusal, where it is reasonable not to grant access (for example, where a recognised union already represents the workers, or where access would unreasonably interfere with operations or require disproportionate resources).

Requests and responses would be made in writing, using a standard government template to ensure consistency. The CAC would determine disputes using statutory access principles, including that access should not unreasonably disrupt the employer’s business and that both physical and digital access must be considered.

Indicative model terms include weekly access and at least two working days’ notice before each visit. The CAC could impose fines of up to £75,000 for an initial breach and £150,000 for repeat breaches, taking account of the seriousness, duration and scale of non-compliance.

Practical and policy considerations

The proposals would create a formal legal process for union access, replacing the voluntary arrangements most employers currently use. Employers’ ability to refuse access would be time-limited and narrowly defined, with the CAC holding ultimate decision-making power.

The short response and negotiation periods will require employers to develop internal protocols for managing requests quickly, especially in larger or multi-site organisations.

Provisions on digital access raise potential data protection, IT security and confidentiality concerns. Employers will need to review how union communications can occur safely through internal or external systems.

Proposed model terms, such as weekly access and minimal notice, may be challenging in operational or regulated environments such as education, healthcare or manufacturing.

Although an exemption is proposed for employers with fewer than 21 workers, larger organisations and those with multiple sites are likely to face greater procedural and compliance demands.

Further clarification will follow in secondary legislation and the Code of Practice, expected in spring 2026, which will define key terms such as reasonable steps and unreasonable interference.

Unresolved or omitted issues

The consultation gives limited detail on how the new framework will operate where a recognised union is already in place, or how existing voluntary access agreements will be treated.

The scope of digital access remains unclear, including how unions will communicate with workers and what controls employers may impose to protect confidentiality and data security.

The definition of “reasonable steps” for employers to facilitate access has not been provided, leaving scope for variation between sectors.

There is little explanation of how the regime will apply in regulated or sensitive workplaces, such as schools or hospitals, where access is already restricted for safeguarding or safety reasons.

The CAC’s enforcement process, including investigations and appeal rights, is not yet defined, and no detail has been given on transitional provisions beyond the target commencement date of October 2026.Finally, no information is given on transitional provisions or implementation timelines beyond the target start date of October 2026. Employers therefore have limited visibility on when and how they will need to comply.

Analysis and observations

The consultation outlines the intended structure of the statutory right of access, focusing on process rather than implementation. It would introduce a regulated system governing how unions can engage with workers, giving the CAC a central role in resolving disputes and imposing penalties.

For employers, the framework would reduce autonomy to manage union engagement directly and increase procedural oversight. The most significant implications are likely to be administrative rather than structural, but they will still require new systems for handling requests and record-keeping.

Much will depend on the secondary legislation and forthcoming Code of Practice, which will determine how key concepts such as reasonable steps and unreasonable interference are interpreted in practice.