Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 7 April 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1456(2025)

7 April 2025

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

University and College Union (UCU)

and

BIMM University Limited

1. Introduction

1)         University and College Union (UCU) (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 14 March 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by BIMM University Limited (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “all salaried employees on pay scale five and below at the Bristol Campus whose reporting lines lead up to the Bristol Centre Managers. This includes the following teams: deputy/course leaders, Building & Technical, Estates, Campus and Technical Services, Academic Administrators, Principal Lecturer, Wellbeing, Student Life, Timetablers and Creative Futures The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Bristol Campus: BIMM Institute, St James House, Moon St, St Paul’s, Bristol BS2 8QY.” The application was received by the CAC on 17 March 2025 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application that same day.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 24 March 2025 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 Paul Swann, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr David Cadger and Mr Paul Noon. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Joanne Curtis.

3)          The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 31 March 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 22 April 2025 in order to allow time for the parties to comment on the results of a membership check and for the Panel to consider said comments before arriving at a decision.  

2. Issues

4)         The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore, should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had made a request for recognition to the Employer dated 30 January 2025. The Union said that the Employer responded on 10 February 2025 stating “it would be helpful to meet later this month and discuss whether or not there is any basis for trade union recognition. Prior to any such meeting, I would also like to give consideration to employee opinion on why they feel any different form of representation is required.” The parties met on 25 February 2025 after which the Union put a draft voluntary agreement to the Employer for consideration. On 3 March 2025 the Employer wrote to the Union and stated “as agreed, we have considered your request for statutory recognition of UCU in respect of the salaried staff at pay scale 5 and below employed at Bristol BIMM Campus. We believe any formal application to the CAC is premature. Whilst we understand that UCU have members at these campuses and that you are confident you consider that this is more than 10% of the proposed bargaining unit, you have not provided evidence to BIMM of UCU’s membership numbers or evidence that a majority of the proposed bargaining unit support UCU’s recognition so as to satisfy BIMM that a statutory recognition request would be successful. On that basis, and before the costs and time of the CAC are incurred, we would invite you to disclose the evidence you seek to rely on now. We are also mindful that the BIMM Bristol campus you have proposed is included in the bargaining unit are part of a larger BIMM community. It is both impractical and out of line with the sector that we would recognise UCU in respect of this smaller sub group of staff. For the reasons set out above, we do not agree to recognition in respect of the proposed bargaining unit. We remain committed to maintaining open lines of communication with all employees and addressing their concerns through our existing channels. Should there be any significant changes in the future, we are open to revisiting this matter. However, we are prepared to discuss any matters of concern which your members may have, and I found our conversation last week in respect of those very helpful.” The Union responded that same day stating “as the data we hold to demonstrate the level of support for the union is special category data, under UK GDPR, we are not able to share that with you. The CAC complete this independent check, taking our information and employer data, to run a report to confirm level of support and membership, as we discussed. We are confident that we have the level of support that I have shared with you and members wish us to progress this request further. As our proposed BU and recognition agreement have not been accepted, I suggest we move to engage the CAC in formalising this process.” The Union attached copies of all the correspondence to its application.

6)        When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered, “no previous application.” The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer did not propose that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 75. The Union stated that there were 49 workers in the proposed bargaining unit and that the Employer did not agree with this figure. When asked to state the number of union members in the proposed bargaining unit and to provide evidence to support this figure the union answered, “12 members. All 12 members in the BU show in our member list as having permanent contracts with BIMM.” The Union further added “we will send on evidence of pledge signatures and our membership list. Owing to the special category data of our membership lists, we would only share with a case manager for checking our BU density and this is not to be shared with the employer.” When asked to provide evidence that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition for collective bargaining the Union said that it had a pledge/petition signed by 34 workers.

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because “there is no other recognised union at BIMM and we wish to represent the workers who are not in management roles. UCU represents all workers in the post-16 education and HE/university sector: we believe that these workers come into this category. We are not aware of any other union actively recruiting members or applying for recognition. Through our contacts, we are confident that the majority of workers who belong to a union belong to the UCU. Workers have not notified us of an intention of another union to seek recognition.” The Union said that the bargaining unit had not been agreed with the Employer. In answer to the question whether there was any existing recognition agreement which it was aware of which covered any workers in the bargaining unit, the Union answered “None.”

9)         The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence. The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 30 January 2025.

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

10)       The Employer said that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 30 January 2025. The Employer said that it had responded to the request on 10 February 2025 and suggested a meeting “to discuss the Union’s belief that union recognition was supported by staff and membership levels.” A meeting took place between the Employer and the Union on 25 February 2025. Following this meeting, a substantive response was sent on 3 March 2025 where it was confirmed that the application for recognition was not accepted by the Employer.

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 17 March 2025. The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form from the Union, agreed the bargaining unit and that it did not agree the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said, it did not consider that the proposed bargaining unit was an appropriate bargaining unit and would address the reasons for this in due course and propose a more appropriate bargaining unit. The Employer went on to say that it did not consider that the Union had the required 10% membership “within the currently proposed bargaining unit and/or a majority in favour (or at least, the Employer has not seen evidence of this). As such the employer considers that it would be more appropriate to deal with this first.”

12)       The Employer stated that as of 24 March 2025 there were approximately 48 workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit. In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer answered “we have no way of validating the suggested union membership in the proposed bargaining unit. We would request that the membership number is validated as part of the application process.”

13)       When asked to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition, the Employer answered “we have no way of validating whether a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to support recognition. UCU have indicated that there was a petition conducted in which 73.9% of the bargaining unit were in favour of recognition. However, the Employer has not been provided with an opportunity to validate that petition or those who were petitioned. The Employer is therefore concerned that there is no satisfactory evidence of majority support within the bargaining unit. This therefore needs to be validated.” The Employer went on to say that it enjoyed a positive relationship with its workers “and had initiated various measures for communication and consultation on our own initiative. The workforce has functioned well without a recognised union and BIMM has well developed HR policies and practices to allow employees to raise concerns and ensure they are addressed.”

14)       The Employer answered “N/A” when asked if it was aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit and when asked if it had received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that it consented to its contact details being forwarded to Acas.

5. The membership and support check

15)       To assist in the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit and a petition supplied by the Union. It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid-up members within that unit (including their dates of birth) as well as a copy of its petition. It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 25 March 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

16)       The information requested from the Employer was received by the CAC on 27 March 2025 and from the Union on 26 March 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

17)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 46 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 19 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 11 a membership level of 23.91%.

18)       The petition supplied by the Union contained 34 names. Of the 34 names 32 were in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represented 69.57% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 32 names, 8 were members of the Union (17.39% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 24 were non-members (52.17% of the proposed bargaining unit). The petition consisted of a word document which showed the text of the petition gathered via Google Forms. The Union explained that it had collated the names from the signatories into the word document. The Union further explained that “staff were spoken to in work about UCU and if amenable to looking more about the union and reading the petition, they gave their personal email addresses and were sent a G form link to read and sign, which the staff rep at BiMM collated via a Gmail (BimmUCU) address.” The word document was set out as follows:

“Petition Wording

UCU, the University and College Union, is campaigning to give staff at BIMM University an independent voice at work.

We want BIMM group to recognise UCU to bargain and negotiate for you, its staff. If we are recognised, we can meet with your management regularly to negotiate on your pay, contracts and other terms and conditions. UCU represents staff in the vast majority of UK universities - click here to learn more about UCU.

Recent events in BIMM group have demonstrated the necessity of organised staff contribution to the effective running of the university and to protect jobs and conditions.

A union would make you stronger at work.

You have the legal right to union recognition if we can show that enough people want it. To make an application for legal recognition we have to apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), the government body that has the power to award recognition and show them that the majority of staff support our application.

That’s why we need you to sign this pledge. This document will be submitted to the CAC to support our application.

YOUR EMPLOYER WILL NEVER SEE THESE SIGNATURES. Your anonymity is protected by law.

At the current time, the committee has decided that the most effective way for UCU to establish a foothold in the company, is to initially seek recognition for a limited bargaining group of salaried staff only. For more information about why this is, click here.  If you have any questions, please email the committee at bimmucu@gmail.com or bimmbristolucu@gmail.com

You do NOT have to be a UCU member to sign and it’s open to ALL Bristol salaried staff at pay scale 5 and below.

Please support the case for an independent collective voice for staff.

FAQs are available HERE. Don’t forget, you can email bimmucu@gmail.com or bimmbristolucu@gmail.com with any questions.

Please do not encourage non-salaried staff to sign this petition as signatures from outside the bargaining unit will not be counted.

I support recognition of UCU for collective bargaining on behalf of salaried staff of pay scale 5 and below at BIMM’s Bristol campus

19)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 27 March 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 2 April 2025.

6. Summary of the Employer’s comments following the membership and support check

20)       The Employer in an email dated 2 April 2025 stated that the CAC should not accept the application and made the following submissions:

“In respect of the first limb, we accept that the Union have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit. In respect of the Second Limb, we are not satisfied that the Union has met the required grounds. In particular:

1) The Union has not satisfied the second limb of the test for the claim to be accepted in that they have not shown that “…a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union (or unions) as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.” This is on the basis that:

a. Potentially no Majority of Union Members / Close numbers. The union’s direct membership in the bargaining unit only represents 23.91% of the workforce. This demonstrates that there does not appear to be any demand for union recognition from the workforce generally.

b. Significant proportion of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit have not signed. The Union indicated in their application for recognition that they considered that the proposed bargaining unit constituted around 49 employees. Only 34 individuals have signed the petition which indicates a proportion of the bargaining unit by the Union’s own figures have not signed the petition, further indicating that there does not appear to be any demand for union recognition from the workforce generally.

c. Significant Proportion of Union Members have not signed. Only 8 union members signed the petition in favour of recognition and only 17.39% of Union members of the proposed bargaining unit appear to have signed the Union’s petition. It is unclear how long the petition was open for. The Employer was unaware of this petition and therefore there was no barrier and no opposition or resistance from the Employer that would have prevented people signing.  Despite that it is clear a significant number of the Union’s own members have failed to sign the petition.

d. No Overall Majority. Of the 34 signatories common to both the petition and membership lists, only 8 were members of the Union (17.39% of the bargaining unit) and 24 were non-members (52.17% of the bargaining unit). We submit that this falls significantly short of demonstrating a majority are in favour of recognition.

e. Lack Of Accuracy in Petition. All of the above assumes (which we do not accept) that the petition was accurate and conducted in a way to make sure that the results were accurate and/or the accuracy of any publicity material. The Employer has not been able to test that. We have concerns relating to the veracity of the Union’s information. For instance, there are 2 names which appear on the Union’s list which do not appear on the Employer’s list and the Employer has no way of understanding who these purported individuals actually are or in what circumstances they were induced to sign.”

21)       The Employer said that there were 8 workers on the Union’s membership list that did not appear on the Employer’s list of workers for the purposes of the 10% membership check and therefore the Panel could not determine on the balance of probabilities that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf as required by paragraph 36 (1). The Employer concluded by saying that given the above there was no basis to suggest that a majority of the workforce would be likely to vote in favour of recognition.

7. Summary of the Union’s comments following the membership and support check

22)       The Union in an e mail dated 3 April 2025 stated that the membership and support check showed that the Union had a membership density of just under 24%. The Union further stated that the check showed that the Union had the support of nearly 70% of the proposed bargaining unit.

8. Considerations

23)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied.  The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision. 

24)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 12. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and paragraphs 37 to 42 of the Schedule. The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraphs 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

25)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit. 

26)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 15 to 19 above) showed that 23.91% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 16 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

27)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 26 above the Panel has decided that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

28)       Under paragraph 36(1) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

29)       The Union carried out a petition of those workers in the proposed bargaining unit. As described in paragraph 18 above, 69.57% of the proposed bargaining unit signed the petition. The Panel has not received any statements from those workers in the proposed bargaining unit who had signed the petition stating that they wished to withdraw their support. Whilst the Panel has considered carefully the detailed comments made by the Employer in its e mail dated 2 April 2025 regarding the membership and support check, at this stage the Panel is not looking at whether the Union has a majority of members in the proposed bargaining unit but instead whether a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit (which consists of workers who are members of the Union and workers who are not Union members but never the less covered by the proposed bargaining unit description) would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the proposed bargaining unit.

30)       On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided that Union membership of 23.91% when taken with the percentage of non-members signing the petition (52.17%) shows that, on the balance of probabilities, a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule.

9. Decision

31)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 23-30 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Paul Swann, Panel Chair

Mr David Cadger

Mr Paul Noon

7 April 2025