Workplace access rights for union officials are a key pillar of the government’s broader agenda to increase the size and power of the trade union movement (which we have written about here). They aim to give unions an initial ‘foot in the door’ in businesses where they may historically have had little or no presence. Currently, unions have no general right to enter workplaces without an employer’s consent, forcing them to conduct most of their organising activities outside the workplace.

Following a public consultation conducted in the autumn, the government has now published its response, providing valuable insights into how the new union right of access will be implemented in forthcoming regulations. The government has also published a draft Code of Practice, which it is consulting on until 20 May 2026.

The new union right of access is expected to come into effect in October 2026.

This article breaks down the government’s plans, what access rights will involve in practice and considers the steps employers should be taking to prepare.

How will the process for access requests work?

The Employment Rights Act outlines a complex legal framework through which unions will be able to request access from employers, failing which they’ll then be able to apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) to order access arrangements.

Encouragingly, the government has extended the timelines for this initial process, based on feedback received during the consultation. As a result, employers will have a period of 15 working days to respond to a union’s request for access. If they don’t accept the request in full, they’ll then have a further 25 working days to negotiate access terms with the union.

If the parties fail to agree terms within that negotiation period, the union will then have 15 working days in which to apply to the CAC to determine whether access to the workplace should be ordered. However, the draft Code makes clear that the CAC will allow the parties more time to continue to negotiate if they wish to do so (in line with the CAC’s well-established practice of seeking to assist parties to reach consensual industrial relations outcomes, where possible).

The CAC will then decide whether the union should be given access to the workplace and, if so, on what terms. In exercising these powers, the CAC must act in accordance with 5 statutory ‘access principles’, which include the principles that union officials should be granted access “in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business” and that “access should be refused entirely only where it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so”. There is therefore effectively a statutory presumption in favour of unions’ access requests, which is reflected in the draft Code which states that it is “the government’s intention that trade unions should have access to workers.” In practice, while employers may be able to challenge specific elements of a union’s proposals, it will be very difficult for them to block an access request altogether.

It's important to note that – in contrast to statutory recognition – there are no minimum levels of membership or support which a union must demonstrate to secure access, and this will not be a factor which the CAC will take into account when deciding whether to order access. This reflects the government’s intention for access arrangements to be an early step in union organising, which can be used to build up sufficient membership to later seek recognition for collective bargaining purposes.

What restrictions will there be on the new right of access?

Only very small businesses with fewer than 21 workers in total will be entirely exempt from access requests. It’s worth noting that this headcount threshold will be assessed on an employer-wide basis (rather than a workplace-specific basis), and we expect it to also capture workers employed by group and associated companies.

The government will also introduce additional exemptions on grounds related to national security and the criminal justice system. If access would prejudice the national security of the UK or the investigation and detection of offences, the CAC will be required to refuse the request. However, this won’t provide a complete exemption for employers in relevant sectors, who would still be required to facilitate access in less disruptive ways -- for example, through digital methods or at off-site meetings away from sensitive locations.

It's notable that already recognising a union, or having an access agreement in place with one, won’t automatically block another union from being able to secure access at the same workplace. However, the government has acknowledged the potential risk that this could destabilise workplaces with established industrial relations. If an employer already recognises an independent union or has a statutory access agreement in place with one, the regulations will prescribe that it will be reasonable for the CAC to deny an access request by another union. In effect, this means that there will be a statutory presumption in favour of rejecting the second union’s request, with the burden on the union to show why it should nonetheless be awarded access. It is possible to envisage these rules being particularly relevant in circumstances when an employer has recognised a more moderate union with a view to blocking a less moderate union from being able to apply for statutory recognition.

How will access arrangements work in practice?

The government will publish ‘model terms’ for access agreements, which the CAC will consider to be reasonable. As including these model terms will make it much more likely that the CAC will grant a union’s access request, they are likely to strongly influence market practice (even if they won’t be the statutory default which the CAC will be required to order in all circumstances). While we’re still waiting for the regulations setting out the model terms, the government has confirmed that they will include the following requirements:

• the union will be entitled to have access (whether physically, digitally or both) up to once per week;
• the union must give at least two working days’ notice for each access visit; 
• the employer must make available existing meeting spaces and communication channels, where reasonably possible;
• the employer must ensure, as far as reasonably possible, the privacy of direct communications between workers and the union;
• union officials visiting the workplace must comply with all reasonable instructions from the employer (including in relation to health and safety, safeguarding, and site security); and
• union officials must comply with existing arrangements for visitors to the workplace.

The requirement for weekly access stands out as a particularly onerous element of the new framework for employers to accommodate. However, given the union movement’s limited resources, it will struggle to provide enough officials to attend a large number of workplaces on a weekly basis.

Employers will welcome the assurances that they won’t be required to allocate disproportionate resources to facilitate access arrangements. The draft Code states that employers will not be expected to make “significant structural changes” to buildings or IT systems to accommodate access by union officials.

The government had previously indicated that it would publish a full ‘model agreement’, but the relatively limited model terms it has announced suggest that it will instead take a less prescriptive approach. This may in part reflect the inherent difficulty of setting out a full set of access terms capable of covering every kind of workplace. The government is instead relying on guidance in the Code to clarify employers’ and unions’ rights and responsibilities, which won’t be legally binding but which the CAC will take into account when making decisions.

We’ve summarised some of the key practical guidance in the draft Code below. However, a number of key details are not addressed in it. For example, while we know that unions will be able to access workplaces up to once per week, there is currently no guidance about how long each visit may be permitted to last for. Similarly, the Code recommends that access should usually take place during employees’ normal working hours, but provides no guidance about what steps businesses can take to minimise the resulting disruption to their operations – for example, it’s unclear whether an employer would be able to only permit part of a particular team to take time away from their work duties to attend a meeting with a union official to ensure sufficient cover. Given the lack of detail in a number of key areas, there will be a particular onus on businesses to try to negotiate tailored access agreements that minimise disruption and are fit-for-purpose for the particular needs of their organisations.

Physical access

The draft Code states that “where practicable, a union should be granted access to the workers at their actual workplace, and in the actual location of their work in that workplace, such as in a meeting room, or in an adjoining work area”. 

The specific space(s) allocated to union officials will depend on the particular nature of the workplace, including health and safety and security considerations as well as the availability of meeting rooms. However, the draft Code recommends that the union should be allowed to use the same spaces as the employer typically uses to communicate with its own employees – so if the business typically uses a canteen for large staff meetings, the same facility should be made available to the union.

In exceptional circumstances, a business may not be able to accommodate union meetings on its own premises. In that scenario, the draft Code envisages that the union may be required to hold meetings off-site at its own expense, with the employer taking reasonable steps to inform employees about the meeting.

The draft Code recommends that access meetings should be “aligned” with “events that involve significant proportions of the workforce during work time, such as during induction events or at training courses.” Unions are likely to push for arrangements of this kind, to maximise the impact and reach of their access meetings.

Digital access

As well as the right to visit a workplace in-person, the Employment Rights Act specifically gives unions new rights to communicate electronically with workers. This represents a major victory for the union movement, which has long seen ‘digital access’ as critical to modernising its organising strategies and recruiting workers in hard-to-reach sectors.

The draft Code clarifies that digital access will primarily involve employers sending out information and invites to virtual meetings on behalf of the union on its existing IT platforms. Unhelpfully, it states that “the cascading of an email” will not be considered to constitute ‘weekly access’, leaving open the possibility that unions may seek to have very large volumes of emails sent out on their behalf to employees.

The draft Code also envisages that unions may have direct digital access to employees – for example, sending them emails directly, rather than through the employer as an intermediary – where individual employees have provided consent for their details to be shared with the union.

Given the unions’ limited manpower, digital communications may well prove the more impactful element of these reforms, as unions will find it easier to arrange for large volumes of emails to be sent out on their behalf than to staff in-person meetings in workplaces.

Third-party property

Many businesses employ staff to work on sites which are controlled by third parties – such as security and facilities management companies, where their employees are based in clients’ premises. Facilitating access for union officials is likely to involve particular practical challenges in these situations.

The draft Code acknowledges this possibility, and makes clear that employers in this position are required to take reasonable steps, including engaging with the owner of the premises to arrange access. If the premises owner refuses to provide access, the union could bring a complaint in the CAC for breach of the access agreement (noting that complaints can be brought against third parties). This would be likely to damage the relationship between the employer and its client or landlord, but unhelpfully the draft Code does not provide any guidance on how best to deal with that issue.

How will access agreements be enforced?

A party will be able to submit a complaint to the CAC about a breach of an access agreement. If the complaint is upheld, the CAC will have powers to order steps to be taken to ensure the agreement is complied with. If a complaint is brought about another breach within 12 months, the CAC will then be able to impose financial penalties.

The government has strengthened its initial proposals for financial penalties, and now intends to introduce a three-tier stage of penalties:

• The first penalty for breach of an access agreement will be capped at £75,000;
• The second penalty for repeated non-compliance will be capped at £150,000; and
• The maximum penalty for each further breach of the same access agreement will be £500,000.

The government has stated that these significant financial penalties are intended to act as a deterrent to “rogue employers” who might otherwise seek to treat penalties as an acceptable cost of deliberate non-compliance.

How can employers prepare for the new rights of access?

In preparation for these changes coming into effect in October 2026, employers may wish to consider taking the following steps:

• Review any policies and procedures for visitors attending workplaces. Based on the model terms, many access agreements are likely to require union officials to comply with these existing arrangements, so employers should take care to ensure that they provide robust safeguards to protect their operations.
• Review existing employee engagement structures and internal communications strategies. From October, it will become much easier for unions to campaign and get out their messages to the workforce. To mitigate this, employers should be proactive in keeping their workforces informed about developments at work and giving them the opportunity to have their voice heard directly on issues that matter to them.
• Businesses which already recognise a trade union should consider agreeing voluntary access arrangements with their recognised union outside of the new statutory process. Doing so is likely to promote good industrial relations, noting that the union would otherwise be able to secure access through the CAC in any event. Voluntary arrangements which are not entered into following a formal statutory request won’t be subject to the enforcement framework summarised above, so employers would also avoid the risk of financial penalties for non-compliance.
• Employers who are concerned about a particular union obtaining access may wish to proactively explore either recognition or a statutory access agreement with another, more moderate union. While this won’t be a complete block to militant unions securing access through the CAC, it is likely to significantly reduce that risk.
• Careful planning may help businesses to identify ways of fulfilling their access obligations with minimum disruption to operations. Once an access request has landed, blanket refusals are unlikely to be successful, but the negotiation period gives employers an opportunity to shape and limit the practical impact.
• Once access arrangements are in place, providing tailored training for managers, HR teams and visitor-facing staff (such as receptionists and security guards) will be key, to ensure union visits are handled appropriately.

Conclusion

The introduction of workplace access rights is a significant change to the industrial relations framework in Great Britain. For many businesses who have had little or no engagement with unions to date, it is likely to be the most impactful of the union-related reforms in the Employment Rights Act.

Unions will look to use their new access rights to campaign and win new members in a broader range of workplaces, with a view to capitalising on the reduced thresholds for statutory recognition which came into effect on 6 April.

However, it remains to be seen whether unions have the resources and relevance to make the most of the new platform provided by the Employment Rights Act. After decades of decline, unions have relatively few organisers and so are likely to target their limited resources for in-person access meetings at businesses where they are already actively organising, as well as opportunistically targeting high-profile organisations. In contrast, it may be easier for the unions to use digital communications to spread their message more widely at a larger range of businesses. Even then, the union will need to be able to have a sufficiently attractive offer to convert that into increased membership in the workplace.