Decision

Recognition Decision

Updated 11 April 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1435(2024)

11 April 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION WITHOUT A BALLOT

The Parties:

National Union of Journalists

and

Bullivant Media Group Limited

1. Introduction

1)         The National Union of Journalists (the Union) submitted an application to the Central Arbitration Committee (the CAC) dated 30 October 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Bullivant Media Group Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all staff journalists currently working for Bullivant Media Group Limited in its newspapers and associated news websites portfolio.” The location of the bargaining unit was given as Webb House, Redditch, Worcestershire B98 8BP. The application was received by the CAC on 30 October 2024 and the CAC gave notice of receipt of the application to the parties that day. The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 6 November 2024 which was copied to the Union.  

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chair established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alastair Kelly and Mr Paul Morley. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate. 

3)         By a decision dated 11 December 2024 the Panel accepted the Union’s application. The parties then entered a period of negotiation in an attempt to reach agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit.  No agreement was reached between the parties as to the appropriate bargaining unit.  Following a virtual hearing held on 13 February 2025 the Panel decided, by a decision dated 6 March 2025, that the appropriate bargaining unit was that specified by the Union in its application, namely, all staff journalists currently working for Bullivant Media Group Limited in its newspapers and associated news websites portfolio.

2. Issues

4)         The next stage of the procedure required the Panel to decide whether a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. Paragraph 22 of the Schedule provides that if the CAC is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) unless any of the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) applies.  Paragraph 22(3) requires the CAC to hold a ballot even where it has found that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the union if any of these qualifying conditions is fulfilled.  The three qualifying conditions are:

(i) the CAC is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations;

(ii) the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf;

(iii) membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.  Paragraph 22(5) states that “membership evidence” is (a) evidence about the circumstances in which union members became members, or (b) evidence about the length of time for which union members have been members, in a case where the CAC is satisfied that such evidence should be taken into account.

3. The Union’s claim to majority membership

5)         In a letter dated 6 March 2025 the Union was asked by the CAC whether it claimed majority membership within the bargaining unit and, if so, whether it submitted that it should be granted recognition without a ballot. The Union, in an e-mail dated 10 March 2025, stated that 78% of the bargaining unit were members of the Union and it therefore believed that the Panel should declare recognition without a ballot.

6)         The Union submitted that the holding of a ballot would not be in the interests of good industrial relations, on the basis that it would introduce additional and unwarranted delay to achieving the desired outcome for a strong majority of the bargaining unit.  It would also create unnecessary uncertainty and tension for those affected individuals, that would be detrimental to the business.

7)         The Union finally adding that the level of union membership had remained strong and stable throughout the process.

8)         On 11 March 2025 the Union’s e-mail was copied to the Employer, and it was invited to comment the Union’s claim to majority membership.  The Employer was also invited to make submissions in relation to the three qualifying conditions specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule and set out in paragraph 4 above. 

4. The views of the Employer

9)         In an e-mail to the Case Manager dated 17 March 2025 the Employer said that it wished to formally request that a ballot of the affected employees be conducted prior to any decision on recognition.  The Employer set out the following grounds for requesting a ballot:

• Uncertainty Over Majority Support:

The Employer said that while the Union had presented evidence of some membership within the bargaining unit, it did not believe that this conclusively demonstrated that a majority of the affected employees supported recognition. Feedback from some staff had indicated a desire for a direct vote, reinforcing the need for a democratic process.

• Unclear Composition of the Bargaining Unit:

The Employer said that despite the CAC’s involvement, there remained uncertainty in regard to which specific employees were definitively included in the bargaining unit. In particular, there were questions as to whether freelance and contracted staff were appropriately counted.  The Employer adding that if the unit included individuals who did not meet the statutory criteria, it could artificially inflate the appearance of union support.

• Overestimated Workforce Figures Due to Incorrect Advice:

The Employer submitted that the original estimate of staff numbers was above 21, and that this was primarily due to incorrect guidance received during the early stages of the process. A subsequent review had indicated that the actual number of eligible staff was lower. Given the small size of the bargaining unit (between 7 and 10), even one or two votes could have a significant impact on the outcome.  The Employer believed that this reinforced the need for a ballot to ensure that the final decision accurately reflected the views of the majority of affected employees.

• The Need for Good Industrial Relations:

The Employer explained that as a small team that worked closely together on a daily basis, it was essential that any decision regarding union recognition was reached in a way that promoted workplace harmony, fairness, and good industrial relations. A recognition decision made without a ballot risked creating division and uncertainty amongst staff, which could negatively impact morale and working relationships. A secret ballot would allow employees to express their views privately and ensure that any decision reached was legitimate and more widely accepted within the workplace.

• Need for Fair Engagement with Employees

The Employer said that to date, it had refrained from engaging directly with employees on the matter in order to comply with CAC rules and to avoid any perception of undue influence. However, given the serious long-term implications of statutory recognition, it was now seeking an opportunity to properly engage with the affected staff, present all relevant information, and ensure that employees were fully informed before making such a significant decision.

• Ensuring a Fair and Democratic Process

It was the Employer’s view that in light of the uncertainties concerning the composition of the bargaining unit, the inaccurate initial staff numbers, and the significant influence a small number of votes may have, a secret ballot was essential.  It would provide transparency and legitimacy to the process, ensuring that recognition was based on clear and current workforce support, rather than an assumption derived from flawed or outdated data.

• Alignment with CAC’s Duties and Principles

The Employer said that the CAC had a responsibility to ensure that recognition decisions were fair, representative, and in the interests of all affected employees.  The Employer believed that given the concerns outlined above, it was imperative that a ballot be conducted to safeguard the interests of all affected employees and to secure a decision that genuinely reflected the workforce’s wishes. A bland acceptance of the Union’s assertions did not align with the relevant duties and principles of the CAC.

10)       The Employer urged the Panel to exercise its discretion under Paragraph 22 of Schedule A1 and order a secret ballot before proceeding with statutory recognition. This was for the reasons referred to above, namely, uncertainties regarding majority support, the unclear composition of the bargaining unit (including questions about freelance and contracted staff), overestimated workforce figures, the considerable impact that even one or two votes may have in this small group, and the need to maintain good industrial relations within a relatively small and closely working team.  

11)       By a letter dated 18 March 2025 the Panel invited the Union to comment on the Employer’s e-mail of 17 March 2025 in which it submitted that one or more of the qualifying conditions as specified in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule, are fulfilled.

5. The views of the Union

12)       In a letter to the CAC dated 24 March 2025 the Union said that it believed none of qualifying conditions had been met.   The Union explained that the Employer had robustly opposed its application for recognition at every stage.   The Union acknowledged that the Employer was “of course absolutely entitled to oppose any application for statutory recognition. But – in this context – the CAC should approach with caution any suggestion by Bullivant that it seeks a ballot having had feedback from ‘some staff’ who have indicated a desire for a direct vote, ‘reinforcing the need for a democratic process’.”  The Union continued, stating that there had been no such comments made to the Union’s full time Official or Local NUJ Representatives indicating a desire to undergo a ballot.  The Employer had produced no such evidence of the same.  The Union said that it believed the Employer was seeking a ballot because “it is again seeking (at this final stage) to defeat recognition.”  The Union also made the following points in response to the Employer’s submissions:

Paragraph 22(4)(a) – the CAC is satisfied there should be a ballot in the interests of good industrial relations:

• The Employer’s submissions did not address the question of why a ballot was necessary in the interests of good industrial relations. A reference to industrial relations was a reference to the industrial relationship between the trade union and the employer (and not to the relationship between employers and employees and/or as between employees).

The level of support in the bargaining unit/the percentage of union members in the bargaining unit

• The statutory scheme provided that if the CAC is satisfied that 50% of the bargaining unit are members of the union, the Union would be awarded recognition unless one of the qualifying criteria under paragraph 22(4) are met.  It was the Union’s view that the qualifying criteria had not been met.

The views of the bargaining unit – unclear composition:

• The Union contended that there was no uncertainty about the composition of the bargaining unit, which the Union stated was clearly defined and related only to ‘all staff journalists’ at the company and did not therefore include individuals who were freelance or self-employed contractors.

• The Union said that on the point of small numbers in the bargaining unit having a significant impact on any ballot, it believed that there had been no evidence whatsoever to suggest dissatisfaction with the Union or the prospect of it gaining statutory recognition. The Union said that it “currently has a majority of 78% in the confirmed bargaining unit and therefore contends a majority vote in favour of recognition.” The Union said that the Employer had produced no evidence to support its contention that a ballot would alter that position.

Is a ballot in the interest of good industrial relations:

• The Union said that the Employer, in making its submissions asking for a ballot, had an opportunity to assert why a ballot was necessary in the interests of good industrial relations i.e. in relation to the relationship between the Employer and the Union.

• However, the Employer in its submissions had referred to the impact on staff, in particular asserting that the absence of a ballot would cause division and uncertainty.  The Union said that it did not agree with the Employer.  In particular, the Employer had explained the impact on “working relations” with its employees and the results being more widely accepted if recognition were subject to a ballot.  The Union argued that this was not an issue for the CAC, as it was required to consider the relationship between the Employer and the Union.   The Union said that that nothing was mentioned concerning the impact of a ballot on this relationship.

• In contrast, the Local Representative and Union Official assert that in general relations are relatively good between the Employer and the Union.  In any event the Union has the majority in the Bargaining Unit and there is no suggestion or credible evidence provided that this would alter from a ballot process, which would undermine and introduce unnecessary uncertainty, tension and distraction to the affected individuals and be detrimental to the business and industrial relations.  Determination without a ballot will not have any negative impact on industrial relations.  In fact, it would be likely to have the opposite effect, bringing about certainty and closure to the process and allowing the strengthening of the working relationship.

• A ballot would have a negative effect on industrial relations.  If the Employer was refusing to admit the obvious, that the majority of the workers want collective bargaining, then delay of itself is likely to sour industrial relations (NUJ and AOL (UK) Ltd (TUR1/424/05, 25 May 2005), CAC).  Furthermore, campaigning in the run-up to a ballot could polarise views, stoke up feelings, and further worsen industrial relations. The CAC should therefore begin from the premise that a Union which had majority membership should be awarded recognition without a ballot unless there is good reason to hold otherwise.

Fair Engagement with employees:

• The Union believed that the Employer could have engaged with its employees in a manner which avoided ‘undue influence’ and it was now seeking a ballot process to ‘engage with affected staff’.    The Employer, as a small business with a limited bargaining unit, could have communicated with its staff in a productive way but elected not to do so.  The Union stated that “it would be a concern that in such a small operation, the dominant power of senior managers that exists at a micro level would risk exerting pressure on staff and significantly undermine working relationships.”

Ensuring a fair and democratic process:

• The bargaining unit had not changed, and union membership had increased since the application to the CAC in October 2024.  The level of union membership was 60%, and it had risen to 78%.  The Union considered that there was no uncertainty about the majority support for the Union

6. Considerations

13)       The Act requires the Panel to consider whether it is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union.  If the Panel is satisfied that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union, it must issue a declaration of recognition under paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule unless any of the three conditions in paragraph 22(4) is fulfilled.   If the Panel considers that any of them is fulfilled it must give notice to the parties that it intends to arrange for the holding of a secret ballot. 

14)       The membership check carried out by the Case Manager for the purposes of the Panel’s decision on acceptance, the result of which was reported to the Panel and the parties on 27 November 2025, showed that 7 of the 10 workers in the bargaining unit were members of the Union, a membership level of 70%.   In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that the majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are members of the Union.

15)       The first condition in paragraph 22(4) is that the Panel is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.    The Panel has considered the submissions put forward by the parties and does not find that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.  The Panel notes the Employer’s assertion that recognition without a ballot could lead to division and uncertainty amongst staff that could negatively impact morale and working relationships.  However, the Panel has received no evidence to show how industrial relations would be detrimentally affected if it were to award recognition without holding a ballot.   The Panel has concluded that this condition has not been satisfied.         

16)       The second condition is that the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, from a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.  No such evidence has been produced, and the Panel has concluded that this condition does not apply.

17)       The third condition is that membership evidence is produced which leads the CAC to conclude that there are doubts whether a significant number of the union members within the bargaining unit want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf.  No such evidence has been produced, and the Panel has therefore concluded that this condition does not apply.

18)       Finally, the Panel notes the Employer’s comments regarding what it describes as the unclear composition of the bargaining unit. However, the Panel is satisfied that there is no ambiguity in the make-up of the bargaining unit, which covers staff members only.

7. Declaration of recognition

19)       The Panel is satisfied in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Schedule that a majority of the workers constituting the bargaining unit are members of the Union. The Panel is satisfied that none of the conditions in paragraph 22(4) of the Schedule is fulfilled. Pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of the Schedule, the CAC must therefore issue a declaration that the Union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit. The CAC accordingly declares that the Union is recognised by the Employer as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit comprising “all staff journalists currently working for Bullivant Media Group Limited in its newspapers and associated news websites portfolio.”

Panel

Mr Stuart Robertson, Panel Chair

Mr Alastair Kelly

Mr Paul Morley

11 April 2025