A new Code of Practice governing trade union recognition takes legal force in two days. On the three points respondents opposed most, by margins of 94 to 97 percent, the government changed nothing.
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
In short. The Code of Practice (Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process) Order 2026 brings a revised Code into force on 30 October 2026, replacing guidance that had stood since 1 October 2005 [1]. The Department for Business and Trade's own consultation on the draft found 94 percent of respondents (850 of 884) said its digital access provisions were inadequate, 97 percent (833 of 860) said its guidance on access agreements was insufficient, and 96 percent (836 of 867) said its guidance on unfair practices was insufficient [3]. On each point, the government explained why it was keeping the position respondents had just rejected, and the final text, approved by both Houses in October, keeps it [2]. Three documented mistakes: four stars.
From Monday, any employer in England, Wales or Scotland served with a trade union recognition claim has to work to a new rulebook: how often a union gets into the workplace, how long each access meeting runs, and what counts as playing dirty during the ballot. The Department for Business and Trade wrote that rulebook after asking the public what it should say. On the three questions where the public answered in the clearest numbers, it kept its first draft.
A full rewrite, not a tidy-up
The Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process is made under sections 203(1) and 204(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, giving practical guidance to employers, unions and the Central Arbitration Committee on how access and conduct should work during a statutory recognition or derecognition application [1]. It supersedes the Code that came into effect on 1 October 2005, more than two decades earlier, and the government has described this as a complete revision rather than an amendment [1]. The draft was laid before Parliament on 6 July 2026 and approved by the House of Lords on 14 October and the House of Commons on 21 October; the Order brings it into effect on 30 October 2026 [1]. It is a separate instrument from the Code of Practice on the new right of trade unions to access workplaces generally, which this site tested against its own consultation eight days ago [4].
Three questions, three majorities
The Department for Business and Trade's consultation on the draft Code asked respondents, directly, whether the text was good enough. On whether the updates "appropriately reflect the increased use of digital communication in workplaces," 850 of 884 respondents who gave a clear answer, 94 percent, said no [3], page 11. On whether Section D of the Code, which covers what belongs in an access agreement, "includes sufficient information," 833 of 860, 97 percent, said no, with a consistent call for the term "proportionate access" to be given a working definition [3], page 15. On whether the Code "provides sufficient guidance on how unfair practices might be used to influence the outcome of an application," 836 of 867, 96 percent, said no, asking for worked examples [3], page 17. A fourth question found 95 percent of respondents, 921 of 865, identified at least one area of the Code needing further guidance.
What the government did with each answer
On digital access, respondents had asked for guidance on cybersecurity risk, data breaches and GDPR compliance when unions use an employer's internal systems [3], page 11. The government's response says it has "provided further clarification on digital access provisions at paragraph 42 and elsewhere in the Code" [3], page 12. The final text of paragraphs 54 to 59 covers how long an employer has to put union material on a staff intranet (two working days), when an employer may decline to forward it, and a note that the Code does not require the employer to give the union access to its own systems [2], pages 24 to 25. None of it is cybersecurity or data-handling guidance.
On Section D, the government's response states plainly that "to define proportionate in terms of access would also fetter the CAC when it makes its decisions" [3], page 17. The final Code uses the word "proportionate" exactly once, in paragraph 39, with no definition and no criteria attached: "the number of union representatives entitled to access should be proportionate to the scale and nature of the activities or events organised" [2], page 18.
On unfair practices, respondents asked for worked examples to help smaller employers tell ordinary management action apart from an unfair practice. The government's response says so directly: "the government does not believe it is appropriate to include these within this Code," leaving the Central Arbitration Committee to rule case by case [3], page 18. No examples or case studies appear in the final Code.
The claims, tested
| The government's own words | What the final Code actually contains | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| "Provided further clarification on digital access provisions at paragraph 42 and elsewhere in the Code" [3], page 12, after 94 percent said digital provisions were inadequate | Paragraphs 54 to 59 cover intranet noticeboard timing and a data protection disclaimer for the union itself; no guidance on cybersecurity risk or data handling, the specific gap respondents named [2], pages 24 to 25 | Procedural detail added; the substantive ask was not |
| "To define proportionate in terms of access would also fetter the CAC when it makes its decisions" [3], page 17, after 97 percent said Section D lacked sufficient information | "Proportionate" appears once in the final Code, in paragraph 39, with no definition [2], page 18 | The word respondents said needed defining is undefined in the text that took it to Parliament |
| "The government does not believe it is appropriate to include these within this Code" [3], page 18, after 96 percent asked for worked examples of unfair practices | No examples or case studies of unfair practices appear anywhere in the final Code [2] | The request was declined and nothing was substituted for it |
Credit where due
The government did not ignore the consultation wholesale. It increased the minimum length of a union access meeting from a shorter period to 45 minutes, a change respondents had specifically asked for, and clarified that normal management action unconnected to a recognition campaign, such as a scheduled performance review, will generally not count as an unfair practice, addressing a distinct worry raised by employers about day-to-day management being caught up in the process [3], page 18. The reasoning the government gives for declining to define "proportionate" is not unreasonable on its face: a fixed formula could tie the Central Arbitration Committee's hands in genuinely varied workplaces. The problem this piece documents is not that the government disagreed with its respondents. It is that on the three questions where the disagreement was clearest, the final text does not show its working.
Verdict
Four stars, from three documented mistakes. A twenty-year-old Code of Practice has been rewritten and takes legal effect in two days. On each of the three questions where the government's own consultation produced a 94 percent or higher majority against the draft, the government kept the draft's substance and explained, rather than changed, its position.
The star score counts three documented mistakes. First, 94 percent of consultation respondents (850 of 884) said the draft Code's digital access provisions were inadequate and specifically asked for guidance on cybersecurity and data handling; the final Code's response, paragraphs 54 to 59, covers intranet noticeboard logistics and a data protection disclaimer, not the guidance asked for. Second, 97 percent of respondents (833 of 860) said Section D of the Code lacked sufficient information, naming the undefined term "proportionate access" specifically; the government's response states that defining it would fetter the Central Arbitration Committee, and the final Code's only use of "proportionate," in paragraph 39, remains undefined. Third, 96 percent of respondents (836 of 867) asked for worked examples of unfair practices; the government's response states plainly that it does not believe this is appropriate, and no examples appear in the final text. Three falls in the 1 to 3 band: four stars; the bands are on the ratings page. This piece makes no finding about the conduct of any named official; the decision to decline these specific changes is the department's, not any individual civil servant's. All sources below were fetched directly on 28 October 2026; none returned an error.
Sources
- The Code of Practice (Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process) Order 2026, legislation.gov.uk, made 26 October 2026, in force 30 October 2026
- Code of Practice: Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process (PDF), Department for Business and Trade
- Government response: Making Work Pay - Consultation on the revised Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices during the Recognition and Derecognition Process (PDF), Department for Business and Trade, published 6 July 2026
- Trade union access rights: a new statutory right lets trade unions into British workplaces from 30 October, Tracked Changes, 20 October 2026