Rethinking the Code of Practice: Recognition, Derecognition and Electronic Ballot Integrity

In recent months, conversations around how recognition and derecognition processes are managed have grown more constructive. At the same time, there is renewed attention on the integrity of electronic ballots used in these processes. This draft blog invites stakeholders to share views on the revised code of practice that governs recognition and derecognition, and on proposals designed to address unfair practices in electronic ballots. The goal is straightforward: strengthen fairness, transparency and trust in the procedures that affect workers, unions and employers alike.

Context and purpose

Recognition and derecognition processes sit at the heart of effective workplace representation. A clear, robust code of practice helps ensure that decisions are made on the merits, with appropriate safeguards for neutrality, due process and proportionality. The revised code aims to clarify roles and responsibilities, define the standards for evidence and representation, and set out practical steps for consistent application across industries and regions. Alongside this, proposals to curb unfair practices in electronic ballots seek to modernise voting arrangements while protecting workers’ rights to vote freely and privately.

What the revisions are aiming to achieve

– Clarity and consistency: A more explicit framework for timeframes, thresholds, and decision-making criteria so businesses, unions and workers understand what to expect and how decisions will be reached.
– Neutral administration: A stronger emphasis on independent administration of ballots and procedures to minimise potential bias or external influence.
– Transparency and information flow: Clear rules about what information can be shared with stakeholders, how information is presented, and how disputes can be raised and resolved.
– Proportional safeguards: Proportionate protections that balance the needs of competitive business environments with workers’ rights to organise and engage in lawful collective activity.
– Adaptability for modern practices: Recognition that electronic ballots are increasingly common, with requirements that address digital security, accessibility, and data privacy without compromising the integrity of the vote.

Unfair practices in electronic ballots: what to watch for

Electronic ballots offer convenience and speed, but they also introduce new avenues for unfair practices if not properly guarded. Proposals for the code of practice recognise the need to proactively address these challenges. Key areas include:

– Coercion and intimidation: Any pressure, threats or inducements aimed at influencing how a worker votes, whether through direct messages, workplace communications, or other channels.
– Misleading or manipulative information: Dissemination of false or misleading statements about the ballot, outcomes, or the consequences of voting a particular way.
– Interference with voting processes: Attempts to influence turnout, access to ballots, or the counting process through inappropriate contact, manipulation of eligibility, or improper access to systems.
– Privacy and data handling: Inadequate protection of voters’ personal data, or the use of data to target individuals or groups in a manner that breaches privacy or induces voting behaviour.
– Security vulnerabilities: Weak authentication, insecure ballot platforms, or insufficient audit trails that could enable tampering or false reporting of results.
– Inconsistent accessibility: Barriers that prevent certain groups from voting (for example, due to platform limitations, language, or accessibility gaps) undermining equal opportunity to participate.
– Misuse of campaign resources: Unfair advantage gained through employer or union resources in ways that distort the neutrality of the process.
– Disclosure offences: Improper release of confidential information or ballot-related data beyond permitted parties or times.

What is being asked of consultees

We are seeking views from employers, trade unions, worker representatives, legal advisers, and other interested stakeholders on:

– The balance between speed and fairness in recognition and derecognition procedures, and whether the revised code provides appropriate timelines and milestones.
– The role and independence of any ballot administrator, including governance, accountability, and audit capabilities.
– The level of detail required in guidance about evidence, disclosures, and decision criteria to ensure consistent applications without compromising legitimate sensitivities.
– Provisions addressing electronic ballots: the security standards, integrity checks, accessibility commitments, and privacy safeguards that should be embedded in the code.
– Safeguards against unfair practices: practical measures to deter coercion, misinformation, data misuse, and other behavioural risks, while maintaining legitimate campaigning and information-sharing within the boundaries of the process.
– How disputes and complaints should be handled, including the remedies available and the timeliness of resolution.
– Stakeholder engagement: preferred formats for consultation (written submissions, roundtables, webinars) and any examples or case studies that illustrate current strengths or gaps in the existing framework.

Practical considerations for implementation

– Training and awareness: A commitment to educating employers, unions and workers about the revised code, with clear reference materials and example scenarios.
– Technology standards: A framework for the selection, deployment and review of electronic ballot systems, including security, auditability and user support.
– Data governance: Clear policies on data minimisation, retention, access controls and respondent confidentiality.
– Monitoring and review: Provisions for periodic review of the code to reflect changes in technology, legal developments, and stakeholder feedback.
– Transitional arrangements: Guidance on how ongoing recognition or derecognition processes will be managed as the new code comes into force.

How to participate and what happens next

Your views matter. Submissions should address the questions above, drawing on practical experience, relevant evidence, and any published materials you think are helpful. The consultation process will typically include:

– Written responses: A structured form or open commentary, with an indication of the weight you assign to each issue.
– Stakeholder events: Webinars or roundtable discussions to explore key themes in depth and to hear diverse perspectives.
– Public summaries: An accessible briefing that highlights common themes, points of disagreement, and potential amendments.

We will publish a summary of responses and outline how feedback will influence the final version of the code and related guidance. If you have case studies, examples, or data that illustrate current practice or gaps, please share them where appropriate.

Closing reflection

Fair recognition and derecognition processes, paired with robust protections against unfair practices in electronic ballots, are essential to maintaining trust in the system and safeguarding workers’ rights to participate in meaningful collective representation. By inviting broad input, the aim is to produce a code of practice that is clear, enforceable, and adaptable to evolving workplace dynamics, while ensuring the process remains fair, transparent and credible for all parties involved.

We welcome your views and look forward to constructive contributions that help strengthen the integrity and efficacy of recognition, derecognition, and ballot administration in the digital age.

February 04, 2026 at 11:45AM
Make Work Pay：工会承认程序的行为准则与电子投票中的不公平做法
我们正在就承认与撤销承认过程中的修订行为准则，以及关于电子投票中的不公平做法的提案征求意见。

阅读更多中文内容： 关于修订认可与撤销程序行为准则及电子投票不公平行为拟议措施的征求意见解读