Decision

Bargaining Unit Decision

Updated 20 May 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1377/2023

01 May 2024

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DETERMINATION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:  

GMB

and

City Facilities Management (Distribution) Ltd

1. Introduction

1)         GMB (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 15 November 2023 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining by City Facilities Management (Distribution) Ltd (the Employer) for a bargaining unit comprising the “Three sites which are owned by Asda Stores Limited are based in Scotland City Facilities Management Distribution or the third party which provide the staff to carry out cleaning duties within the sites. These staff are known widely as Asda Aces. They are all hourly paid”.  The locations of the proposed bargaining unit were: (Site 1) ADC 4 Asda Grangemouth Distribution, Westmains Industrial Estate, Grangemouth, FK3 8YE. (Site 2) CDC4 Asda Falkirk Distribution, Abbots Road Falkirk, FK2 7XP. (Site 3) ASC Asda Falkirk, Orchard Hallway, Falkirk FK2 7ZS. The CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application on 15 November 2023.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 21 November 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 Alastair Kelly, and Mr Ian Hanson.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kaniza Bibi.

3)         By a decision dated 15 December 2023 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.  As no agreement was reached, the parties were invited to supply the Panel with, and to exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.  A hearing was held on 16 April 2024 and the names of those who attended the hearing are appended to this decision.

4)         The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule), to decide whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. Paragraph 19B(1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions,  the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need.  The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate.

2. Summary of the submissions made by the Union

5)         The Union stated that in the ASDA distribution sites in Scotland it was comfortably clear that they met the threshold of 50% membership for recognition. The Union explained that the workforce onsite had been clear in their demand for trade union representation and currently, any pay deals or changes to terms and conditions of employment were simply imposed on its members. The Union stated its members had collectively decided that it was time for that to change and they asked the Union to push for formal union recognition to improve their working rights and conditions.

6)         The Union believed that trade union recognition would not only be of benefit to the City FM workers onsite but would also benefit the Employer, by positively embracing a working relationship with a trade union, this would signify the Employer’s intention to act in the best interests of its employees, and also increase lines of communications regarding health and safety issues and other employee concerns that may arise.

7)         The Union confirmed that the City FM workers on site were currently in a situational anomaly where the rest of the employees under ASDA were represented by a trade union [GMB] and had a functioning agreement, but City FM employees did not have a similar agreement in place between their union and employer. The Union stated it was unfair that a minority group in the workforce were restricted from the ability to organise and negotiate effectively, and it believed a union agreement would help stop a two-tier workforce being created.

8)         The Union stated it currently had a range of local agreements in place across the country that operated successfully. The Union also confirmed it had local agreements with the schools’ contractor Amey in Glasgow, Renfrewshire, and Borders, where its members terms and conditions of employment were negotiated separately from those directly employed by those respective local authorities. The Union explained that there were similar agreements in place in East, North and South Ayrshire councils with Mitie and it had local Scotland based agreements with the UK private care companies Active Care and Silverline Care, and also a local recognition agreement with the Glasgow Apple store.

9)         When asked by the Panel whether its proposed bargaining unit would be compatible with effective management, the Union stated that it failed to see why it would not be compatible as similar agreements were already in place elsewhere. The Union stated it could demonstrate that smaller bargaining units work well within larger organisations and its members wished to have terms and conditions as per Scotland’s charter for workers’ rights. The Union believed that the proposed bargaining unit could work and that the Union would engage collaboratively with the Employer.

10)       Finally, the Union confirmed that currently all negotiations were conducted separately and on a local basis, rather than UK wide, and therefore this clearly demonstrated a functional precedent.

3. Summary of the submissions made by the Employer

11)       In this application the Union had proposed a bargaining unit consisting of hourly paid cleaning staff known as “Asda ACEs” employed by the Employer with these employees working at three Asda distribution sites in Scotland, namely: (1) Asda ASC, Falkirk; (2) Asda CDC4, Falkirk; and (3) Asda ADC4, Grangemouth. (Together, the “Scottish Sites”)

12)       The Union then confirmed in correspondence dated 4 December 2023 that the proposed bargaining unit included supervisors working at the Scottish Sites in addition to the Asda ACEs.

13)       Along with its submissions the Employer provided a witness statement from Lisa McPherson, Group People Director (UK & Europe) at City Facilities Management Holdings (UK) Limited which the CAC was invited to read with the bundle of documents exhibited in her statement.

14)       In summary, the Employer believed that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate, on the basis that it was not compatible with the need for effective management and taking into account the relevant matters set out in paragraph19B(3) of the Schedule, so far as they do not conflict with that need; and the appropriate bargaining unit was all Asda Cleaning Environment Services (“ACEs”) and Hygiene Shift Supervisors (“HSSs”) employed by the Employer within the Asda distribution sites in the UK. The Employer explained such a unit was compatible with the need for effective management as it mirrored how the Employer operated across the Asda contract. When asked by the Panel how many sites it covered the Employer stated that there were 39 sites in total with only three of these sites, i.e. those in Scotland, that were subject to this application. The Employer confirmed that 5.8% of its employees nationwide were ACE’s and HSS’s.

15)       The Employer gave an overview and background of the undertaking explaining that City FM Holdings was the parent company of several subsidiaries that traded in the provision of construction, installation, and facilities management services. Two of these subsidiaries provided services exclusively for Asda, namely: (1) City Facilities Management (UK) Limited (“City FM UK”), which was ringfenced to provide a broad range of facilities management services to Asda retail stores across the UK and its head office and (2) The Employer, which provided a narrower range of facilities management services, namely cleaning and maintenance services, to Asda distribution sites across the UK.

16)       The Employer explained it was effectively managed as a subsidiary of City FM UK, even though its parent company was City FM Holdings. The Employer continued to explain that City Group employed approximately 3,700 employees across its different subsidiaries within the UK and that City FM Distribution provided cleaning and maintenance services to 39 Asda distribution sites across the UK. The Employer stated that these cleaning services at each distribution sites were provided by ACEs and HSSs and that these employees reported to a Depot Hygiene Manager (“DHM”), who was based in each of the larger distribution sites. The Employer also stated that Maintenance services were provided by Depot Maintenance Assistants (“DMAs”) and Depot Maintenance Technicians (“DMTs”) and that these employees reported to a Senior Maintenance Technician (“SMT”).

17)       The Employer said that the DHMs and SMTs reported to a Cluster Facilities Manager (“CFM”) and that the Employer divided its operations into four regional clusters, namely (i) Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Northeast, (ii) the Northwest and Yorkshire, (iii) Midlands and Lutterworth, and (iv) the Southeast and Southwest and that there was one CFM for each regional cluster. The Employer confirmed that CFM’s reported to the Divisional Manager, who managed the provision of cleaning and maintenance services to Asda’s distribution network across the UK. The Employer stated that decision-making at a local, regional, and national level by the DHMs, CFMs and the Divisional Manager respectively was very limited, and that the discretion of such managers was limited to day-to-day operational management within a centrally allocated budget, which was determined under the terms of the contract with Asda. The Employer explained that the Divisional Manager reported to the Head of Facilities Management Services at City FM UK, who in turn reported to the Account Director of City FM UK.  The Account Director was responsible for the negotiation of the contracts with Asda and she reported directly to the CEO of City FM Holdings.

18)       The Employer submitted that the Asda contract provided for the cleaning and maintenance services, and it was governed by a single national contract (the “Asda Contract”) covering all of the 39 distribution sites at which the Employer provided its services. Its contract was negotiated and renewed by the City FM UK Account Director who also had similar responsibilities for managing the analogous contract governing the provision of facilities management services by City FM UK to Asda. The Employer explained that it operated with an input specification which stipulated the number of hours to be used and gave an example that Asda would specify the number of times that certain facilities had to be cleaned at a distribution site. The Employer further explained that this meant that a national budget was negotiated for the provision of services, as well as how that budget was to be utilised across the regions and individual distribution sites. The Asda Contract also determined several other features that applied to the employment of ACEs and HSSs, including job descriptions, the requirement for them to comply with certain Asda policies, such as its drug and alcohol policy, the pay banding and applicable rates including the three-band pay system which dictated whether employees received the standard rate of pay, the middle rate of pay or the highest rate in the case of London Distribution Centres. The Employer confirmed that the Asda Contract specified which sites were allocated to which band. The contract also covered annual leave entitlement of the ACEs/HSSs, notice periods and Redundancy entitlements.

19)       According to the Employer the Asda Contract stipulated that it could not alter pay, bonus arrangements, holiday entitlement, notice periods, redundancy entitlements, hours of work (used at the distribution sites) or other material aspects of the contracts of employment for ACEs/HSSs without Asda’s consent. The Employer confirmed that to service the Asda Contract, it employed 542 employees, including 402 ACEs and 48 HSSs at the 39 Asda distribution sites across the UK. And that the size of the distribution sites varied considerably and some employed as a few as 1 ACE and no HSS and others employed 72 ACEs and 6 HSSs. The Employer stated that the Scottish Sites employed relatively small numbers, namely 34 employees in total, including 24 ACEs and 2 HSSs across the three distribution sites. By comparison, Asda directly employed over 1,200 employees across two of these distribution sites (Falkirk CDC and Grangemouth ADC) alone. The Panel asked the Employer how it benchmarked its employees and the Employer confirmed that every year benchmarking was looked at across all sites and bands were proposed and then signed off by the Account Director.

20)       In regard to terms and conditions of employment of ACEs/HSSs, the Employer explained that the ACEs and HSSs carried out fundamentally the same tasks across all 39 distribution sites in the UK.  A template contract of employment which was issued to all ACEs and HSSs working across all distribution sites was in its bundle of exhibits. This template included standardised terms and conditions which were largely driven by the Asda Contract.

21)       The Employer explained that the Asda Contract required contracts of employment to be issued to ACEs/HSSs on an hourly paid basis, and that DHMs/CFMs could determine whether a worker worked on a full-time basis or for a fixed number of hours per week.  The Employer further explained that it was constrained by the budget set by the Asda Contract as to the number of hours to be used at the distribution sites. It did not have the ability to vary any other terms and conditions of employment. The Employer said it must offer the centrally agreed terms and conditions of employment, which included the stipulated pay bands and holiday entitlement.

22)       The Employer stated that the Management of ACEs/HSSs was also highly centralised within City Group.  City FM Holdings determined a single set of policies and procedures that applied nationally to all employees within the City Group, such as the disciplinary and grievance procedure. Centrally agreed disciplinary, grievance and performance management procedures were also applied uniformly at all distribution sites. There was no locally agreed deviation from this procedure.  The HR function, administration of payroll and access to benefits was also provided centrally by City FM UK or City FM Holdings.

23)       The Employer submitted that the CAC must ask itself whether the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate, accordingly to the statutory criteria and that if the CAC decided the proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate, it must decide an alternative bargaining unit that was appropriate.  In deciding the issue of appropriateness, the CAC must have general regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace. The Employer stated that the CAC when considering the bargaining unit, should specifically be directed to attach paramount importance to the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management.  Compatible in this context meaning ‘consistent with’ or ‘able to co-exist with’.

24)       The Employer raised concerns about the appropriateness of the Union’s proposed bargaining unit arguing that the CAC’s focus should be on the substance of those concerns, rather than the technical classification within the list of relevant matters in R (Lidl Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee [2017] ICR 1145 (“Lidl”). The Employer said when deciding what was appropriate the CAC may take into account the practice of comparable employers: TGWU and International Radiators (TUR1/203/02, 4 December 2002 CAC); NUJ and Telegraph Group Ltd (TUR1/204/02, 20 December 2002 CAC); and BALPA and Emerald Airways Ltd (TUR1/429/05, 12 December 2005 CAC).

25)       The Employer stated that it may be relevant for the CAC to consider whether the proposed bargaining unit would result in “a small island of union recognition in a sea”.  The Employer also stated that it was not desirable if the system of setting core terms and conditions for a workforce was fragmented, in the sense that in one location such terms may be determined by collective bargaining whereas elsewhere they would not, and that the proposed bargaining unit was small compared to the overall workforce.

26)       The Employer explained that “Effective management” meant achieving workable methods of resolving issues in three areas and referred the Panel to previous decisions of the CAC in GMPU and Ritrama (UK) Ltd (TUR1/178/2002, 11 July 2002 CAC) and GMB and Carillion (TUR1/963/2016, 23 July 2016 CAC).

27)       When taking into account of the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking this did not relate to size alone but rather the risk that such units may lead to a proliferation of bargaining units which may be prone to competing with each other: R (Cable & Wireless Services UK Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee [2008] ICR 639.   It had long been regarded as undesirable that employers should have to negotiate with more than one trade union in respect of parts of their workforce who were not essentially different.

28)       The Employer respected the rights of individual employees to belong to and be represented by a trade union, nevertheless, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit did not further the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace with the Employer believing that it had the opposite effect.  In particular, the proposed bargaining unit was not compatible with the need for effective management within the undertaking.

29)       The Employer said that the scope of the proposed bargaining unit was limited to 28 ACEs/HSS at three distribution sites in Scotland which formed only part of a regional cluster, out of a wider unit of 450 ACEs/HSSs working across 39 distribution sites in the UK.  These workers at the Scottish Sites generally had the same or similar characteristics as the other 422ACEs/HSSs working at the other 36 distribution sites in the UK.  It would be a waste of management time, inconvenience, and expense if ACEs/HSS at the Scottish Sites were to be treated as a separate entity. Instead, the Employer operated on a national basis and terms and conditions of employment of ACEs/HSSs were determined centrally and were driven by the terms of the Asda Contract.

30)       Whilst local and regional managers had some discretion as to the number of weekly hours that were offered to ACEs/HSSs under their contracts of employment these regional managers were constrained by the budget which set out the parameters of the number of hours to be used in a region and at a distribution site, as well as for example, Asda’s requirements as to the number of times that facilities that must be cleaned. This meant local and regional managers had little to no influence over the headcount of ACEs/HSSs nor the times at which work must be carried out at the distribution sites.

31)       The Employer confirmed that annual leave entitlement of ACEs/HSSs, as well as the process for requesting such leave, was determined centrally under the Asda Contract and Local, regional, and national managers employed by the Employer had no discretion as to whether to offer any additional holiday entitlement above the statutory minimum. The Employer also confirmed that there was also commonality as to other relevant terms and conditions of employment such as flexibility of location, frequency, method of payment, notice periods, required method of notice, sick pay, absence reporting, probationary periods and access to a pension scheme.

32)       The Employer reiterated that accordingly, the Union’s proposed bargaining unit did not offer a sensible and workable vehicle for collective bargaining in respect of pay, hours and holiday, and that ultimately, the local managers for the Scottish Sites (as well as the regional managers and even the national manager) had little or no decision-making power over these matters. The Employer said that its employees lacked the authority to negotiate terms and conditions of employment and any negotiations would have to take place with the Account Director at City FM UK with responsibility for the Asda Contract. Further, the Employer also said that any negotiated changes to terms and conditions of employment must be agreed by Asda in order to avoid the Employer being in breach of the Asda Contract and accordingly, negotiations with the Union’s proposed bargaining unit risked undermining the commonality of approach by both the Employer and Asda to the employment of ACEs/HSSs.

33)       The Employer reemphasised the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking was of relevance in this case and if ACEs/HSSs at the Scottish Sites were recognised as a separate bargaining unit, there was a risk that there would be fragmentation of the rest of the workforce employed under the Asda Contract. The ACEs/HSSs at other sites may wish to be treated differently and separately from others and this was not a theoretical risk as the Employer had been approached by USDAW who had expressed an interest in developing a relationship in respect of Asda’s distribution sites in Northern Ireland. This may potentially give rise to the problems of competition and comparisons between the negotiations with different trade unions for employees that should be dealt with as one unit.  These risks made collective bargaining unworkable.

34)       For these reasons, the Employer’s position was that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate. As for what was an appropriate bargaining unit, the Employer submitted that it would be ACEs/HSSs employed by the Employer at all 39 distribution sites in the UK.  Given how the business operated, any bargaining unit would have to operate on a national basis. The Employer said this reflected that the management and organisation was highly centralised, but also that the terms and conditions of employment, and ways of working, were determined centrally under the Asda Contract. The Employer also said it was relevant for the CAC to take into consideration that a national bargaining unit would mirror the collective bargaining arrangements in place for employees directly employed by Asda at its distributions sites.

4. Considerations

35)       The Panel is required, by paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule to the Act, to decide whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate and, if found not to be appropriate, to decide in accordance with paragraph 19(3) a bargaining unit which is appropriate. Paragraph 19B(1) and (2) state that, in making those decisions,  the Panel must take into account the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need.  The matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) are: the views of the employer and the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the bargaining unit under consideration and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant; and the location of workers. Paragraph 19B(4) states that in taking an employer’s views into account for the purpose of deciding whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate, the CAC must take into account any view the employer has about any other bargaining unit that it considers would be appropriate. The Panel must also have regard to paragraph 171 of the Schedule which provides that “[i]n exercising functions under this Schedule in any particular case the CAC must have regard to the object of encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace, so far as having regard to that object is consistent with applying other provisions of this Schedule in the case concerned.”  The Panel’s decision has been taken after a full and detailed consideration of the views of both parties as expressed in their written submissions and amplified at the hearing.

36)       In reaching its decision the Panel has taken account of the views of the Union and the Employer as expressed in their written submissions, responses to questions and oral submissions during the hearing. Both parties were asked if there was any further questions or clarifications required, to which the parties answered no.

37)       The Panel’s first responsibility is to decide, in accordance with paragraph 19(2) of the Schedule, whether the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is appropriate. That does not require the Panel to determine whether it is the most appropriate bargaining unit; only whether it is appropriate. This is the overriding requirement under 19B(2) and relates principally to the matters to be collectively bargained for under the statutory regime namely pay, hours and holidays. The requirement is that the proposed bargaining unit would be compatible with effective management, not that it be compatible with the most effective management. Against the background of that overall responsibility the Panel has to consider the matters listed in paragraph 19B(3) of the Schedule reminding itself that these matters must not conflict with the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management.

38)       The Panel finds in the circumstances that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union is compatible with effective management. The Panel’s reasons are as follows:

(a)        the roles in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are all situated in one region, across three sites namely, (Site 1) ADC 4 Asda Grangemouth Distribution, Westmains Industrial Estate, Grangemouth, FK3 8YE. (Site 2) CDC4 Asda Falkirk Distribution, Abbots Road Falkirk, FK2 7XP. (Site 3) ASC Asda Falkirk, Orchard Hallway, Falkirk FK2 7ZS.

(b)       all of the workers in the roles in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are subject to the same contracts of employment which was governed by a single national contract (the “Asda Contract”),

(c)        the organisational structure of the Employer was set out in the witness statement of Lisa McPherson.  Asda ACEs and HSSs who provide cleaning services at the distribution sites report to Depot Hygiene Managers who in turn report to Cluster Facilities Managers, “CFMs.  CFMs are regional managers who manage the set budget for their regional cluster, of which there are four across the UK.  The proposed bargaining unit falls within the Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Northeast cluster. The proposed bargaining unit comprises three sites across two geographic locations, Falkirk, and Grangemouth which the Employer referred to as the Scottish Sites.  The remaining sites in the Cluster are in Northern Ireland and the North East of England.  The Scottish sites employ 34 colleagues, 24 ACEs and 2 HSSs, across those three sites. The Panel noted that comprised all ACEs and HSSs in Scotland, comprising the hourly paid employees. Other job roles were salaried.

(d)       all of the workers in the roles in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit are subject to the same contracts of employment.

(e)        Pay levels vary according to the pay banding which a particular site falls into, however the Panel noted that pay is set on a site-by-site basis within that framework.

(f)        CFMs carry out recruitment. Hours of work are determined by the CFMs, albeit it within a fixed budget. The CFMs were able to decide if a person should be full time, part time and the hours they would work.

(g)       CFMs are the point of appeal in disciplinary and grievance appeals.

(h)       The internal employee forum set up by the Employer provides for representation at local, regional and national levels with representatives specifically for Scotland.

(i) The Union submitted that prior discussions had focused not on the need for a national bargaining unite but instead a regionally focused one.  The Employer did not dispute this. Furthermore, in the Panel’s industrial experience it is not unusual for negotiation parameters to be set at a more senior level but bargaining at a local level.

(j) The Panel noted the prior CAC cases referenced by the Employer, but on the facts of this case finds that a bargaining unit comprising hourly paid employees in Scotland, within the Regional Cluster of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the North East, is compatible with effective management.

39)       As part of those deliberations the Panel considered those matters at 19(B)(2)(b) not dealt with above as follows:

(a) The views of the Employer and Union were fully considered.

(b) There are no current national or local bargaining arrangements.

(c) The Union’s proposal created one bargaining unit across all three Scottish sites within the Cluster for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and North East England. The Panel does not find that this creates fragmentation.

(d) The characteristics of the workers falling within the bargaining unit align in that they are all hourly paid employees in the Scottish sites of the relevant cluster. The Employer acknowledges at paragraph 39 of Lisa McPherson’s statement that the inclusion of other types of workers would not be appropriate given the cleaning colleagues are hourly paid whereas all other roles are salaried.

(e) The workers are all located in Scotland.

40)       The Panel considered paragraph 19B(4) given the Employer’s view that a national bargaining unit would be the most appropriate. The Employer’s argument was heavily predicated on the arrangements within the contract determined by their client, Asda and the CFMs having little or no negotiating powers, however the Panel is not persuaded by this for the purpose of this decision.  The legal structure of the Employer was well described by the Employer, and it is a commercial operation, entering into contracts which are negotiated with its customer, Asda. The contractual arrangements between the Employer and Asda may well be relevant to available budgets but does not prevent collective bargaining.   The Employer also submitted that the proposed bargaining unit would cause a waste of management time, inconvenience, and expense which the Panel did not accept as determining factors to the relevant legal tests. Finally, the centralised functions referenced by the Employer are not unusual or a barrier to collective bargaining.

5. Decision

41)       The Panel’s decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that proposed by the Union, namely: “Asda ACEs” employed by the Employer working at three Asda distribution sites in Scotland, namely: (1) Asda ASC, Falkirk; (2) Asda CDC4, Falkirk; and (3) Asda ADC4, Grangemouth”.

Panel

Mrs Lisa Gettins, Panel Chair

Mr Alastair Kelly

Mr Ian Hanson QPM

01 May 2024

6. Appendix

Names of those who attended the hearing:

For the Union

Robert Deavy              -           GMB Scotland Organiser

For the Employer

Marianne Tutin           -          Barrister at Devereux Chambers

Lucy Pickering           -           Managing Associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP

Lisa McPherson          -         Group People Director (UK & Europe), City FM Holdings