Every legal claim on this page renders from the evidence register — its source passage, pinpoint citation and verification state included.
The happy-path walkthrough follows an access request that ends in a signed agreement. This page follows the same invented case down the other road — the one the statutory process is really built for. Marisol Adeyemi-Clarke of ASDWS has served her request on Thornebeck Distribution Ltd; the response clock is running; and what happens next depends on the response. The Code of Practice governing all of it has been laid before Parliament but is not yet in force — it states the requirements intended to apply once the remaining formal steps are complete, not yet operative obligations — and everything below is cited to its source with its verification status visible.
As on the happy path, every clock is counted in working days, the way the Code counts them — never as calendar dates, because the Code does not say which nation's bank-holiday calendar applies. The day counters below are the recorded fixture case, recomputed from the working-day engine on every test run.
"Working day" means any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or a day which is a bank holiday. The Code does not specify which nation's bank-holiday calendar applies.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“the term "working day" should be read to mean any day other than a Saturday or a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday, or a day which is a bank holiday.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), Preamble, para. 7(iii). This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/working-day-definition
How the clocks nest: the response and negotiation windows both run inside the referral envelope, which is counted from the original request — not from where negotiation failed. Dashed marks are story beats from the invented case, not legal steps.
Working day 12
Four ways a response can go
The employer's response is due by the end of the response window. What arrives — or does not — sets the branch. The primary legislation draws that line in exactly two places, not four: a valid response notice was given in time, or it was not.
Under section 70ZE of the 1992 Act: where the employer has not given a valid response notice before the response period ends, the union may apply directly to the Central Arbitration Committee. Where the employer gives a valid response notice in time — including a notice rejecting all or part of the request — the parties enter the 25-working-day negotiation period, and either party may apply to the Committee only after that period ends without written agreement.
Corrected 12 Jul 2026Conclusion changed: Yes — a rejection given in time is now stated to open the negotiation period, not a direct route to the Central Arbitration Committeeledger entry
Section 70ZE of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (inserted by the Employment Rights Act 2025) creates two routes to a determination by the Central Arbitration Committee on an access request: where the employer has not given a response notice before the end of the response period, only the union may apply; where the employer has given a response notice before the end of the response period and the negotiation period has ended without the union and the employer agreeing terms in writing, either the union or the employer may apply.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“(1) This section applies if a qualifying trade union has given an access request to an employer and either— (a) the employer has not given a response notice to the union before the end of the response period, or (b) the employer has given a response notice before the end of the response period and the negotiation period has ended without the union and the employer agreeing in writing terms on which officials of the union are to have access. (2) The Central Arbitration Committee may, on an application under this section, make a determination that officials of the union are or are not to have access. (3) If the Central Arbitration Committee makes a determination that officials of the union are to have access— (a) the determination must specify the terms on which officials of the union are to have access (including as to what (if any) assistance the employer must provide in relation to the access), and (b) an access agreement containing those terms (and no others) is treated as having been entered into between the union and the employer. (4) An application for a determination under this section may be made— (a) by the union, in the case referred to in subsection (1)(a); (b) by the union or the employer, in the case referred to in subsection (1)(b).”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 70ZE(1)-(4) (Chapter 5ZA, inserted by the Employment Rights Act 2025, s. 59(1)-(2)). This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 12 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-determination-routes
"Valid" is carrying weight in that last paragraph. A request or response notice is only one for this purpose if it is in the prescribed form, includes the prescribed information, and is given in the prescribed manner — so an informal reply that disagrees with a request but does not meet those requirements may not count as a statutory response notice at all. This site does not decide that question for a real case.
An access request under section 70ZB(1) of the 1992 Act must be in the prescribed form, include the prescribed information, and be given in the prescribed manner; an employer's response notice under section 70ZB(4) is subject to the same three requirements. Only a request or notice meeting those requirements is an "access request" or "response notice" for the purposes of this Chapter (section 70ZB(6)).
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“(3) A request under subsection (1) must— (a) be in the prescribed form; (b) include the prescribed information; (c) be given in the prescribed manner. (4) An employer that has been given a request under subsection (1) may give the union a notice agreeing with the request or disagreeing with the request (in whole or in part). (5) A notice under subsection (4) must— (a) be in the prescribed form; (b) include the prescribed information; (c) be given in the prescribed manner.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 70ZB(3)-(5) (Chapter 5ZA, inserted by the Employment Rights Act 2025, s. 59(1)-(2)); the defined terms depending on that compliance are at section 70ZB(6). This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 12 July 2026 · How verification works
The fastest version of the process: acceptance made clear in the response, and the parties notify the Central Arbitration Committee to record the agreement. The happy-path walkthrough tells this story to its end.
If the employer agrees to the terms in the request, it should make its acceptance clear in the response; the parties then notify the CAC using the CAC's mailbox to record the agreement, and the CAC keeps records of every statutory access agreement, whether negotiated or determined by the CAC.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“If the employer agrees to the terms in the request, then it should make clear its acceptance in the response to the trade union. The parties should then notify the CAC using the CAC’s mailbox to record the agreement and proceed. The CAC will keep records of every statutory access agreement (whether agreed by the employer and the trade union through negotiation or determined by the CAC).”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 31. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-response-acceptance
The employer disputes some terms
The response accepts in part and rejects in part, element by element with reasons. Giving that response notice in time opens the negotiation window under section 70ZE of the 1992 Act — and this page follows what happens when it closes without agreement.
If the employer is rejecting the terms of access in the request, it should notify the union in clear language, and must provide details of which elements it is specifically rejecting and the reasons for doing so in as much detail as possible. It should also provide as much relevant and useful information as possible, including whether another union has recently applied for access or awaits a CAC ruling on access, and whether some or all of the workers are already covered by a recognition agreement or a statutory or voluntary access arrangement.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“The employer and trade union are expected to engage with negotiations on access in good faith, but if the employer is rejecting the terms of access provided in the request, then it should notify the trade union of this in clear language. The employer must provide details of which elements of the request for access they are specifically rejecting and the reasons for doing so in as much detail as possible. The employer should provide as much relevant and useful information as possible, including whether another trade union has recently applied for access or is awaiting a ruling from the CAC on whether access will be granted, as well as whether the some or all of the workers subject to the access request are already subject to a trade union recognition agreement or a statutory or voluntary access arrangement.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 32. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-response-rejection-content
The employer rejects the request
A rejection must still be a response: clear language, the specific elements rejected, and reasons in as much detail as possible. Giving that response notice in time — even one that rejects everything — starts the 25-working-day negotiation period under section 70ZE; it does not open a route to the Committee that skips it. Paragraph 43 of the Code reads as if it might, quoted on this page exactly as laid, with the likely drafting explanation.
Corrected 12 Jul 2026Conclusion changed: Yes — a rejection given in time is now stated to open the negotiation period, not a direct route to the Central Arbitration Committeeledger entry
The Code states that if notice is received before the end of the response period, the trade union can apply to the CAC without needing to go through the 25-day negotiation period.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“If notice is received before the end of the response period, the trade union can apply to the CAC (without needing to go through the 25-day negotiation period).”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 43 (first sentence). This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-response-period-route
That sentence is rendered exactly as the laid Code words it, and reads oddly against the design just described: its opening trigger, "if notice is received", would let a rejection skip straight to the Committee — directly contrary to section 70ZE. The most likely explanation is a drafting slip: the word "no" appears to be missing ("if [no] notice is received"), which is also the only reading consistent with this sentence's own reference to avoiding the negotiation period, and with paragraph 43's later phrase "if one was received". The quote above stays exactly as laid; the statute, not this paragraph, is this page's authority on what actually happens next.
The employer does not respond
The response clock runs out with nothing to show. This is the statute's direct route (section 70ZE(1)(a)): no valid response notice was given, so the union may apply straight to the Committee. The Code's referral mechanics expect this case — the application to the Committee attaches the employer's response "if one was received" — and the negotiation window, which counts from a response notice, never opens.
If negotiations are unsuccessful, either party can notify the CAC through its mailbox; the application must be in writing and in such form as the CAC may require, and the notifying party should copy the other party in. When notifying, the union should provide the original access request with the date it was sent, the employer's response with its date if one was received, and the latest proposal the union made during the negotiation period.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“If negotiations on the terms of access are unsuccessful, then either party can notify the CAC through their mailbox. The application must be in writing and in such form as the CAC may require. On receipt of an application the CAC will then begin their decision-making process. The party making this notification should copy the other party into this notification for information. When notifying the CAC, the trade union should provide the original access request (with the date on which it was sent) and the employer’s response along with the date of the response, if one was received. The trade union should then also provide the latest proposal that it made to the employer during the negotiation period.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 43. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-referral-application
This page follows the hard road
Story event — not a legal step
In the recorded case, Owen Trelfall's response lands on working day 12 of the response window — inside the clock it had to beat: digital access accepted, the physical-access terms disputed on frequency and location, element by element with reasons, as a rejection must be.
Statutory limit — employer response Official code of practice · para. 30
VerifiedJK · 10 Jul 2026
Working days only. The Code fixes no bank-holiday calendar, so no calendar date is printed.
Show supporting passage
“Upon receipt of the application, the employer can take up to 15 working days from the day an access application is given (not when the request is passed on to the correct person or team within the employer) to respond to a request for access”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 30. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-response-period
The window runs
The window closes without agreement
The negotiation window opens on the day the response is given, and both sides are expected to negotiate in good faith — considerate of each other's perspectives, working toward practical solutions. The frame both sides negotiate inside is set by the statute's five access principles, and they lean toward access happening:
The five access principles in section 70ZF(2) of the 1992 Act: (a) officials of a qualifying union should be able to physically enter a workplace or communicate with workers (or both) for any access purpose in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer's business; (b) an employer should take reasonable steps to facilitate access; (c) physical entry should not be refused solely because communication without physical entry is permitted; (d) communication without physical entry should not be refused solely because physical entry is permitted; (e) access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“The access principles as set out in the section 70ZF(2) of the 1992 Act are as follows: a) officials of a qualifying trade union should be able to physically enter a workplace or communicate with workers (or both) for any of the access purposes in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business (b) an employer should take reasonable steps to facilitate access by officials of a qualifying trade union (c) physical entry into a workplace should not be refused solely on the basis that communication with workers by means not involving physical entry into a workplace is permitted (d) communication with workers by means not involving physical entry into a workplace should not be refused solely on the basis that physical entry into a workplace is permitted (e) access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 49. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-principles
The access principles reflect a presumption towards access: unions should be able to physically enter a workplace or communicate with workers (or both) in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer's business, and employers are required to take reasonable steps to facilitate access. An employer assessing that a request would unreasonably interfere with business, or require unreasonable steps, is expected to explain how in its access response.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“These principles reflect that there is a presumption towards access and that trade unions should be able to physically enter a workplace or communicate with workers (or both) under the access framework, in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business. Employers are required to take reasonable steps to facilitate access. If the employer assesses that a request for access contains terms that will unreasonably interfere with business or will require unreasonable steps to facilitate access, then the employer is expected to, in their access response, explain how they believe this is the case.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 48. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-presumption
Story event — not a legal step
In this telling the gap does not close. Marisol Adeyemi-Clarke wants a weekly presence at the Marley Cross Distribution Centre; Owen Trelfall offers monthly visits in a back office. The window runs its full course — working day 25 of 25 — without agreement.
Statutory limit — negotiation window Official code of practice · para. 36
VerifiedJK · 10 Jul 2026
Working days only. The Code fixes no bank-holiday calendar, so no calendar date is printed.
Show supporting passage
“The trade union and the employer have 25 working days following the day on which the response notice is given to negotiate the terms of an access agreement.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 36. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-negotiation-period
If the parties are proceeding with positive negotiations when the 25-day negotiation period elapses, there is no need to apply to the CAC for an extension — they can continue to negotiate until they arrive at an agreement. (The Code then describes sending the agreed terms with a new access request.)
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“If the trade union and the employer are proceeding with positive negotiations, but the 25-day negotiation period has elapsed, there is no need to apply to the CAC for an extension. Instead, the parties can continue to negotiate until they arrive at an agreement.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 38 (the follow-on mechanism is paras. 39-42). This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-negotiation-continuation
Working day 40 of the envelope
Referring the case to the Committee
Marisol Adeyemi-Clarke refers the case on working day 40 of the referral envelope — the single period, counted from the day the original request was given, inside which an unresolved case must reach the Central Arbitration Committee. The application is written, in the Committee's required form, with Thornebeck Distribution Ltd copied in; it attaches the original request with its date, the response with its date, and the union's latest proposal, so the Committee decides on the most up-to-date position the negotiation reached.
Statutory limit — referral to the Central Arbitration Committee Official code of practice · para. 44
VerifiedJK · 10 Jul 2026
Working days only. The Code fixes no bank-holiday calendar, so no calendar date is printed.
Show supporting passage
“Parties who are unable to reach agreement have 55 working days from the date the original access request was given to make an application to the CAC. It might be possible for the CAC to extend that to 70 days where it considers that it was not reasonably practicable for a party to apply for a determination under section 70ZE within the time limit.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 44. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-referral-period
If negotiations are unsuccessful, either party can notify the CAC through its mailbox; the application must be in writing and in such form as the CAC may require, and the notifying party should copy the other party in. When notifying, the union should provide the original access request with the date it was sent, the employer's response with its date if one was received, and the latest proposal the union made during the negotiation period.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“If negotiations on the terms of access are unsuccessful, then either party can notify the CAC through their mailbox. The application must be in writing and in such form as the CAC may require. On receipt of an application the CAC will then begin their decision-making process. The party making this notification should copy the other party into this notification for information. When notifying the CAC, the trade union should provide the original access request (with the date on which it was sent) and the employer’s response along with the date of the response, if one was received. The trade union should then also provide the latest proposal that it made to the employer during the negotiation period.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 43. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-referral-application
The evidence bundle is an annotated walkthrough of the records behind that application — the request, proof of service, the response, the negotiation correspondence and the referral itself, in the order they arise.
Before the Committee
How the Committee decides
By default a three-member panel decides; a request consistent with the Code's model terms is more likely to be treated as less complex, routed to a single-person panel, and granted. Marisol Adeyemi-Clarke's weekly ask matters here, because weekly access to each covered workplace is itself a model term the Committee must regard as not unreasonably interfering with the employer's business:
A referred access request is decided by default by a three-member CAC panel; where the union's request is consistent with certain model terms, the CAC is more likely to consider it less complex and eligible for a single-person panel, which may expedite the application — and more likely to consider that access should be granted.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“Where an access request is referred to the CAC for a decision, this decision will by default be made by a three-member panel, as is standard practice for the CAC. However, where a trade union’s request for access is consistent with certain ‘model’ terms, the CAC is more likely to consider the request less complex, and therefore eligible to be reviewed by a single person panel, which may expedite the application’s progress. Where the trade union’s request for access is consistent with these ‘model’ terms, the CAC is more likely to consider that access should be granted.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 45. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-panel
Weekly access — or less frequent access if the union does not want weekly — is a model term: the CAC must regard access on a weekly basis to each workplace covered by the agreement as a term that does not unreasonably interfere with an employer's business.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“Access of a frequency of weekly (or less frequently than weekly if the trade union does not want weekly access) will be regarded as a model term by the CAC. This means that the CAC must regard access on a weekly basis to each workplace covered by the agreement as a term that does not unreasonably interfere with an employer’s business.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 60. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-model-term-weekly
The panel decides inside a defined frame. Some refusals are mandatory — an employer below the worker threshold, a request without the required first-visit notice, an agreement that would run too long:
The CAC will refuse a statutory access request where the relevant employer, applying the associated-employer test, has fewer than 21 workers. (Not an "exemption": voluntary access arrangements remain possible; the count is made at the level of the wider associated company, so a small subsidiary of a larger group is in scope.)
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“The CAC will refuse requests for access where the employer in question has fewer than 21 workers. This threshold, in line with the 'associated employer' definition in the 1992 Act, is applied to the overarching company responsible for each employer.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 21. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-under-21-refusal
At least five working days' notice must be given before the first instance of access under an agreement takes place; an access request that does not provide for this must be refused by the CAC.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“To be successful, any access request must provide the employer with at least five working days of notice before the first instance of access under the agreement takes place.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 52. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-initial-notice-period
An access agreement may not initially last longer than two years from the date it is agreed or imposed, unless the parties agree to extend it.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“No access agreement will last longer than two years, starting from the date at which the access agreement is either agreed between the parties, or imposed by the CAC, unless the parties have agreed to extend the length of the agreement.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 53. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-agreement-max-duration
Others are grounds on which refusal is regarded as reasonable — chiefly where the workers are already represented, already in a recognition process, or already covered by an operating access agreement:
The CAC may refuse access to workers who are already represented by a recognised independent union, are within an ongoing statutory recognition process, or are already covered by a statutory access agreement in operation. Where a request covers some workers in those circumstances and some not, the CAC is still able to impose an access agreement for the workers who are not.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“If the employer in question already recognises an independent trade union that represents one or more of the workers that are subject to an access request, then the CAC may refuse access to those workers on that basis. The same applies where there is an ongoing statutory recognition process at the workplace, concerning the one or more workers that the access request also is seeking access to. The CAC may also refuse access where one or more of the workers subject to the access request is already subject to a statutory access agreement that is in operation. If an access request covers some workers who are covered by these factors, and some who are not, the CAC is still able to impose an access agreement on the workers who do not fall under these circumstances.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 55. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-reasonable-refusal
None of those grounds touches the fixture case, and the presumption leans toward access: the panel imposes an agreement — weekly surgeries in a bookable room at the Marley Cross Distribution Centre, the digital channel as already accepted. An imposed agreement is a statutory access agreement exactly as a negotiated one is, recorded by the Committee the same way.
After the agreement
Why the process is real
An agreement — negotiated or imposed — is only as real as what happens when it is breached, on either side. The Code's answer is a graduated process, not a cliff edge. A complaint goes to the Committee's mailbox, on a clock of its own:
Complaints to the CAC about a breach of an access agreement must be made no more than three months after the matter complained of is alleged to have occurred; complaints should be made by email to the CAC's mailbox, setting out the nature of the alleged breach in as much detail as possible.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“Complaints to the CAC must be made no more than three months after the matter complained of is alleged to have occurred. Complaints should be made via email to the CAC using their mailbox. This email should set out in as much detail as possible the nature of the alleged breach of the access arrangement.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 115. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-complaint-time-limit
The Committee's first response is remedial — put the access back on track, restore the time lost:
On an initial complaint under section 70ZH the CAC will investigate and can — not mutually exclusively — alter the agreement (for example extending its expiry to account for time lost to obstruction), declare the complaint well-founded or not, and, on a well-founded complaint, order specified steps to be taken to ensure the agreement is complied with.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“Following a complaint under section 70ZH, the CAC will investigate, and can do the following (these are not mutually exclusive): a. Alter the agreement (e.g. extending any expiry limit on the access agreement to account for time lost in the access agreement due to obstruction) b. Declare that the complaint is or is not well-founded c. If making a declaration that the complaint is well-founded make an order requiring specified steps to be taken in order to ensure the access agreement is complied with”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 118. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-remedial-powers
Penalties enter only at the second step, when a breach has already been upheld and it happens again:
CAC intervention follows a two-step process: initial complaints are assessed under section 70ZH (grouped or upheld separately); once a complaint has been upheld and a further complaint is received under section 70ZI — the other party or a third party having breached the agreement again, whether of the same or a different nature — the process moves to penalty fines and potential cumulative fines.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“Intervention from the CAC follows a two-step process. The CAC is able to assess initial complaints, under section 70ZH, and may either group them together or uphold them separately. Once a complaint has been upheld, and a further complaint is received under section 70ZI, if the other party/third party has again breached an access agreement (either of the same nature as the first breach, or a breach of a different nature), the process moves to penalty fines and potential cumulative fines.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 117. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-enforcement-two-step
Under the same access agreement, the maximum penalty is £75,000 for a first penalty order, £150,000 for a second arising from repeated non-compliance, and £500,000 for a third or subsequent order. £500,000 is a per-order maximum, not an aggregate cap — orders can repeat while non-compliance continues, and breaches across workplaces under one agreement count cumulatively.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“The CAC may impose a penalty fine up to a maximum of £75,000 for a first penalty order. For a second penalty order arising from repeated non-compliance under the same access agreement, the maximum penalty is £150,000. Any third or subsequent penalty order issued under the same access agreement shall be subject to a £500,000 maximum.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 124 (context paras. 121-127). This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-penalty-ladder
The scale of that ladder is calibrated to what the framework exists to protect, and it is proportionate in both directions — deliberate obstruction sits at the serious end, while low-gravity breaches may attract no penalty at all:
The fundamental purpose of an access agreement is to enable union officials to enter workplaces or communicate with workers (or both) for the access purposes, so deliberate obstruction of access by an employer is a very serious breach, for which the CAC could award the maximum fine after each further complaint — there is no limit to the number of £500,000 fines for third and subsequent breaches — while breaches of much lower gravity are likely to attract lower penalties or none at all.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“The fundamental purpose of an access agreement is to enable trade union officials to enter workplaces or communicate with workers (or both) for any of the access purposes, so for example, the deliberate obstruction of access by an employer is a very serious breach. The CAC, therefore, could for such a breach decide to award the maximum level of fine after each complaint under 70ZI(2). There is no limit to the number of £500,000 fines for third and subsequent breaches. Breaches of a much lower gravity are likely to attract lower levels of penalty or no penalty at all.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 127. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-enforcement-purpose
What this page rests on
This is the recorded telling of the site's single invented access case — the version whose dates were generated by the working-day engine and are re-checked by test on every build. The happy path is the alternate telling in which the same negotiation succeeds. The dated arithmetic — real deadlines from a real request date, on an explicitly chosen bank-holiday calendar — is the deadline calculator's job.
Facts newly extracted from the laid Code for this page render with an amber caveat until they pass verification review — the same loop as thetransition map. Anything found wrong lands on thepublic corrections log.