Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 28 April 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1457(2025)

28 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:

Unite the Union

and

GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited (GSK)

1. Introduction

1)         Unite the Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 19 March 2025 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by GSK (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising “Automation Engineer; Engineering Maintenance Planner; Senior Lab Analyst; Microbiology Technologist; Microbiology Technical Expert; Senior Microbiology Technologist; Microbiology Process Monitoring (PM); Senior Microbiologist Process Monitoring (PM); Quality Coordinator (OQ); Senior Quality Coordinator (OQ).” The location of the bargaining unit was given as “GSK Barnard Castle Main Site.” The application was received by the CAC on 20 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 27 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 Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Alistair Paton and Mr Matt Smith. 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 3 April 2025.  The acceptance period was extended to 5 May 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 22 November 2024. The Union said that the Employer responded on 10 February 2025 stating that it did not agree with the proposed bargaining unit and that the Union was trying to seek sole recognition rather than bringing a joint application with the GMB Union, which the Employer said would have been in line with the joint recognition elsewhere on the site.

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, “N/A.” 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 approximately 922 “including approx 180 contract staff. HR estimate 800 permanent.” The Union stated that there were 74 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, “59.” 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, “there are 59 members out of a potential 74 who have indicated their desire to pursue union recognition.”

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because it contained “similar roles to those in the current CBU, which would mean that all roles except for management roles would be covered by collective bargaining.” 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 “not for these members however, some of the roles in the proposed bargaining unit are similar to others which are covered by an existing recognition agreement but as roles covered by existing bargaining arrangements become vacant, these roles have deliberately been taken out of the existing CBU.”

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 19 March 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 18 November 2024. The Employer said that it had responded to the request on 22 November 2024 refusing the request stating: “We have previously explained that the steps taken by Unite to extend recognition fail to properly take account of the current long established joint bargaining arrangements that we have with both Unite and the GMB and that Unite are proposing to extend recognition to other employees in your own right and not jointly with the GMB. Our position has not changed since March this year. We don’t think there is clarity in Unite’s approach, and we consider it would lead to the creation of additional small, fragmented bargaining for certain job roles and would not be appropriate or compatible with effectively managing employee terms and conditions in the future. The majority of our sites in the UK do not currently engage in collective bargaining for this type of primarily lab based employees. Their pay and reward structures are different from the employees who are already subject to collective bargaining. We also think that there is the potential that if we were to extend recognition to Unite it may seriously undermine our joint bargaining arrangements with Unite and the GMB for the existing collective group and we do not see how this can work in practice. In the circumstances at this point in time we would not propose extending recognition and as previously outlined we would like to focus on how we can improve the existing recognition arrangements with both Unite and the GMB, including the representative structures. I would be willing to arrange a meeting with the Regional organiser of Unite in due course to discuss current representative arrangements and how we improve relationships on site.”

11)       The Employer confirmed that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 19 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 that the Union had described the bargaining unit as including 10 roles at the GSK Barnard Castle Main Site: “Automation Engineer; Engineering Maintenance Planner; Senior Lab Analyst; Microbiology Technologist; Microbiology Technical Expert; Senior Microbiology Technologist; Microbiology Process Monitoring (PM); Senior Microbiologist Process Monitoring (PM); Quality Coordinator (OQ) and Senior Quality Coordinator (OQ).” The Employer said that it had a long-standing history of recognition and collective bargaining with two Trade Unions (Unite and the GMB) at Barnard Castle Main Site. It said that existing recognition arrangements extended to the following categories of workers: “engineering technicians and senior engineering technicians, thermal validation engineer, lab analyst, senior quality officer, senior packaging materials analyst and shift technician, process support team member, mover, engineering technical officer, aseptic filling operator, line coordinator/enhanced operator, manufacture/fill operator, microbiology technician, washout operator, warehouse enhanced operator, clean area fill operator, process operator, production operator, fill/pack operator, packaging/inspection operator and warehouse operator.” The Employer said that the Union had failed to take account of the current long established joint bargaining arrangements the Employer currently had with Unite and the GMB. The Employer said that many of the workers carrying out the roles included in the proposed bargaining unit worked alongside the roles which were already subject to existing joint recognition between the GMB Union and Unite.

12)       The Employer went on to say that it had never agreed to extend recognition and collective bargaining with Unite and that it had explained its concerns in an email to the Union as early as 15 March 2024. The e mail stated “thank you for your time at our recent meeting on the 19 February 2024. During the meeting you explained that Unite wished to expand recognition into parts of ZSC for certain lab based employees at Barnard Castle and in addition Unite are proposing that recognition at Barnard Castle main site be extended to certain other job roles and functions. In the meeting we spent some time discussing your request and your indication that you have recruited Unite members outside the existing bargaining unit amongst certain job roles and functions. We have previously explained in earlier emails our concerns at the proposed description of Unite’s claimed bargaining units in both ZSC and also within the main site. Our concerns have centred on the fact that the proposed bargaining units are unclear and in some cases cut across job roles and functions for employees who are already subject to collective bargaining by virtue of the existing relationships with Unite and the GMB. We have also explained that the steps taken by Unite to extend recognition fail to properly take account of the current long established joint bargaining arrangements that we have with both Unite and the GMB. While you explained that you had contacted the relevant Officer at GMB to discuss your plans some months ago it is clear that Unite are proposing to extend recognition to other employees in your own right and not jointly with the GMB. We have a number of reservations related to the main site and ZSC recognition approaches you have made. We consider that any decision to extend recognition beyond the current collective bargaining arrangements will ultimately depend on a number of important factors. Firstly we would need to be satisfied that the proposed bargaining units and job roles that Unite are suggesting should be included is coherent and clear. We don’t’ think there is enough clarity in Unite’s proposals and we consider it would lead to the creation of additional small fragmented bargaining for certain job roles and would not be appropriate or compatible with effectively managing employee terms and conditions in the future. The majority of our sites in the UK do not currently engage in collective bargaining for the type of primarily lab based employees you have identified. Their pay and reward structures are different from the employees who are already subject to collective bargaining. We also think that there is a real risk that if we were to extend recognition to Unite only as you request it would seriously undermine our joint bargaining arrangements with Unite and the GMB for the existing collective group and we do not see how this can work in practice. We are not persuaded that extending recognition in the way you have outlined will help the overall working relationships between Unite and the GMB or ourselves and both trade unions. We also think that any decision to potentially extend recognition must be properly supported by the majority of employees in question. We believe that the people employed in the roles you have identified would not be supportive of this direction in the majority of cases and any previous support that some employees may have indicated was driven by active recruitment and campaigning activity on the part of Unite many months ago. In the circumstances at this point in time we would like to focus on how we can improve the existing recognition arrangements with both Unite and the GMB, including the representative structures. We hope you understand our concerns and would be happy to discuss further as necessary.”

13)       The Employer continued with this point and said that the Union had “artificially cherry-picked their proposed bargaining unit with no regard to current management structures, or existing recognition arrangements.” The Employer said that the Union had not considered the characteristics of the workers falling within the Union’s proposed bargaining unit, and how those workers engaged with the other workers across the organisational structure. The Employer said that this would lead to a lack of coherence across their bargaining unit. The Employer went on to say, “for example, one of the roles contained within the proposed bargaining unit is an ‘automation engineer’. However, the Union have failed to include similar roles which fall within the same management structure and organisational chart (such as equipment engineer and process engineer). There are multiple examples of this which results in fragmented bargaining units within the same group structure. Despite the Union confirming in their application that the reasons for selecting the proposed bargaining unit was because they are ‘similar roles to those in the current CBU, which would mean that all roles except for management roles would be covered by collective bargaining’, this is factually incorrect. The Union have included a management role in their application (Microbiology Technical Expert). This role provides direct line management to other roles within the proposed bargaining unit which the Employer submits is not compatible with effective management. No other management roles are currently part of existing recognition arrangements, and this is the only management role that the Union have proposed to be included in the bargaining unit. The Employer does not understand the Union’s rationale for this. In addition, there are also roles within the proposed bargaining unit which are not similar roles to those in the current CBU, as the Union allege. For example, the roles of Quality Coordinator and Senior Quality Coordinator are not similar to any existing collectively bargained roles. These roles are part of a separate team (inhalations and derms) and management structure and there are no roles currently bargained within their team structure. There are separate roles which are similar to those in the current CBU which the Union have omitted from their application which demonstrates the incoherence. In summary, for the reasons articulated above, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate and ignores other roles at the same or similar levels with the same direct line management structure. Out of the 10 roles included in the bargaining unit, it includes one management role which has direct line management of other roles in the bargaining unit but does not include any other management roles in the organisational structure. The proposed bargaining unit also fails to consider existing joint collective bargaining arrangements which have been in place for a substantial period of time.”

14)       The Employer stated that it had 907 workers at the Barnard Castle Main Site. The Employer said that it did not agree with the number of workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. The Employer said that the Union had provided a figure of 74 workers whereas the Employer believed it to be 77. 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 “the Union allege to have 59 members in the proposed bargaining unit but have provided no evidence. The Employer believes that the membership is overstated and requests the Union to provide evidence and for the CAC to conduct an independent membership check.”

15)       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 said that it did not believe that the majority of workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition and requested that the Union provide evidence of likely support.

16)       In answer to the question “if the application is made by more than one Union and you wish to put forward a case that the Unions will not co-operate with each other, please give reasons.” The Employer said that the request was made by one Union, Unite. However, the Employer already had existing recognition arrangements in place on a joint basis between Unite and the GMB Union. The Employer continued to say that the Union was not seeking to extend recognition jointly with the GMB. The Employer said it believed “that there was a risk that recognition could undermine existing joint bargaining arrangements with Unite and the GMB for the existing collective bargaining group, as many of the roles in the proposed bargaining unit work alongside roles which are subject to the existing joint collective bargaining arrangements.” The Employer added “GMB are against this recognition request as its representatives believe it will have a negative impact on pay and potential evolution of people in the named roles.”

17)       The Employer answered “N/A” 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

18)       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. 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). It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists would not be copied to the other party. These arrangements were confirmed in a letter dated 31 March 2025 from the Case Manager to both parties.

19)       The information requested from the Employer and the Union was received by the CAC on 4 April 2025. The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.   

20)       The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 77 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. Covering the following roles:

• Senior Quality Coordinator
• Microbiological Technologist
• Senior Laboratory Analyst
• Automation Engineer
• Non Steriles Technical Expert
• Senior Microbiological Technologist
• Microbiology NPI Technical Expert
• Engineering Maintenance Planner
• Process Monitoring Senior Technologist
• Microbiology Technologist
• Quality Coordinator
• Senior Microbiology Technologist
• Microbiological Technologist – Operator
• Quality Coordinator – Steriles Operational Quality

The list of members supplied by the Union contained 62 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 57 a membership level of 74.03%.

21)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 7 April 2025 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 10 April 2025.

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

22)       The Employer said that whilst it noted that the Union had 74.03% membership within the proposed Bargaining Unit, the Employer submitted that this was not indicative of the majority of workers favouring recognition of the Union. The Employer said that it had a long-standing history of joint-recognition and collective bargaining with two Trade Unions (Unite and the GMB) at Barnard Castle Main Site, in respect of other grades. “As such, many employees within the Bargaining Unit may have chosen to be members of Unite for historical and/or personal reasons.” The Employer said that the Union had not produced any evidence that the majority of workers within the proposed bargaining unit “supported sole Unite recognition, other than their membership figures.”

23)       The Employer said that it was their view that the majority of workers within the proposed bargaining unit “did not support extending recognition arrangements to Unite in this manner as it would create a small, fragmented unit which undermines existing joint recognition arrangements. Furthermore, the employees in the proposed bargaining unit are employed on individual contracts in accordance with GSK’s pay and grading system and our considered position is that such employees would not want their pay and terms and conditions subject to collective bargaining. As noted in the Employer Response, Unite is requested to provide evidence of majority support amongst the Bargaining Unit to support their application.”

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

24)       In an email dated 9 April 2025 the Union said that it did have at least 10% membership in the proposed bargaining unit and given the level of membership this illustrated that it did have likely majority support for recognition and collective bargaining in the proposed bargaining unit. The Union said that with regards to the five members that did not appear on the Employer’s list it believed that by the very nature of their roles at least four of them should have been included in the bargaining unit by the Employer.

8. Considerations

25)       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. 

26)       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)

27)       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. 

28)       The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 18 to 21 above) showed that 73.03% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 19 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.

29)       For the reasons set out in paragraph 28 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)

30)       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. The Panel has not received any communications from the 57 union members in the proposed bargaining unit to say that they do not wish the Union to be recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union.

31)    On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel has decided 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

32)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 25-31 above, the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Alistair Paton

Mr Matt Smith

28 April 2025